Recently we had reason to deal with Arlan Weight in regard to the concept of going to ones brother when there is a problem (sin). While doing that, this article written by Arlan back in 2001 was read by us and gone over again according to scripture. In our dealings with him we realized we had made a terrible mistake in even printing this article and believe that the below article is so unbiblical in it's concepts and principles that we feel we must apologize for our error in ever printing this and put a disclaimer on the article. So for that reason we will be posting this disclaimer in all areas on our Web Site which carry this particular article.

For the purpose of time and space we will only hit on the high points of what is wrong with this article and why. We sincerely apologize to our readers for ever printing this particular article.

Arlan Weight's article:

From my first encounter with the Worldwide Church of God in the late 60's and early 70's 'suspension' and disfellowshipping' were common practices. Prior to either one of these measures being taken, there was an effort to reconcile with the one involved in the infraction. From my perspective the effort usually involved the ministry, maybe not always, but usually.

Over the years I've always had this nagging thought that many people were never reconciled or encouraged in a right way such that they would return and consequently were disfellowshipped. Once disfellowshipped they rarely ever returned. Again, this is my view of things. How about you? How many people have you ever seen return to the local church congregation once they had been officially disfellowshipped?

In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus gives a short and clear guide to solving problems in the church between brethren. Does the prescribed method work? Has it worked for you? If it works, why didn‘t the majority of cases become reconciled, or so it seems to me. Could it be we may have overlooked some things in the instruction that would have made all the difference? Let's take a close look at what Jesus said.

"Moreover if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: if he shall hear you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto you as an heathen man and a publican. (Mat. 18:15-17)

Notice the word "Moreover" beginning the verse, which seems to indicate this instruction is adding to some previous discussion. The discussion in this chapter is dealing with offenses so you have to back up to verse 1. Here Jesus is explaining to his disciples that they need to be very careful not to offend the "little ones". He's letting them know how serious an infraction that is. In fact it's so serious he covers it twice in the same setting; verse 6 and verse 10. Then in verse 15 He launches into the discussion again of offenses and how to handle them.

The word "Moreover" here merely means "likewise" which means "in addition to". The word "Moreover" can be used to transition from one thought to another thought on the same subject, or it can be used to transition from one subject to an entirely different subject as it is used in Matthew 18:15. In Matthew 18 there are many subjects being covered. It starts out talking about, anyone who causes another (the little ones) to sin, then later it talks about going after the lost sheep, restoration of a brother or sister who sins, binding and loosing and forgiveness. Although many of these subjects are related, they are still different subjects with some having a totally opposite concept.

For instance, when it is talking about the "little ones", it's clearly speaking in terms of not causing them to sin and what the consequences of doing that will be. Then later in Matthew 18:15-17, we are talking about the restoration of a brother who is already caught up in a sin. These are two completely different subjects. Helping to restore someone who is caught in a sin is totally different than causing another person to sin.

Jesus stresses the importance and how to deal with a problem with your brother... or sister, which seems to imply someone close to you, maybe a family member, or from the context someone who has been called to the same hope... another church member. In a general sense, though it can also mean anyone because we are all brothers and therefore the prescribed guidance is for anyone.

In Arlan's own words here he indicates how important it is to deal with a problem with your brother or sister and even goes on to show that this applies to anyone, "because we are all brothers and therefore the prescribed guidance is for anyone". Yet when we tried to get him to meet with us face to face from July to September he would not meet with us. Instead he went on to make the situation between us even worse than it initially was, forcing us to formally request a Matthew 18:15-17 meeting with him by December 31, 2005.

Even though we requested a Matthew 18:15-17 meeting with Arlan, he refused to meet with us. We ended up going to his door as in step two of Matthew 18:15-17 on January 2, 2006. When we confronted him face to face at his door, he agreed at that point to meet with us at Perkins and then he sat there with a weird smirk on his face and told us he had a clear conscience and that he had done absolutely nothing wrong to us or anyone else.

Notice the most important aspect of dealing with issues of people having problems with other people and that is it should be between the two parties only and no one else. This seems to be the most vital part of the equation to guarantee the success of the reconciliation... keep the matter private... between you and the other person.

Talebearing

Of course I was not close to many of the cases, but it always seemed to me that too many people knew of the problem early on. There were some times when I knew for certain, there could be no possible way the minister could know of the goings on, unless someone else informed him. Therefore this appears to be a clear violation of the instruction given. Even if it only involved one other person, namely the minister, this violates the instruction. So, could it be this was the first thing that limited the success of the reconciliation?

At least 3 other people locally knew something about the situation and we did not tell them.

It most assuredly hinders the success, especially if the first time the person involved in the infraction, finds out, is when the minister shows up at his or her doorstep. How often has this occurred? And then we wonder why the bad attitude. How would you feel if you're confronted by the minister of some perceived problem and its the first time you became aware of it? What kind of thoughts would run through your mind? What kind of feelings would it generate toward the people you suspect informed the minister? Would you have a bad attitude?

Look at what Proverbs 18:8 says "The words of a talebearer are as wounds, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly" ...kind of like an ulcer. If you've ever had one, you know it's always a touchy thing from then on. So also is talebearing, it's always in the back of your mind of what someone else said about you. They may have thought they were doing right when they told the minister, but again it's not what the instruction says. It says "go and tell him his fault between you and him alone."

In fact the problem may just go away by itself if we give it a little time to let the dust settle. Take a look at Proverbs 26:20. "Where no wood is, there the fire goes out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceases."

So this is the first thing that went wrong in trying to reconcile a brother over some perceived problem. Instead of helping the situation, telling the minister introduced another problem, and maybe involved more people now. It's not hard to see how some simple little thing can grow and grow when this kind of thing takes place. Let's be honest about it, can we admit that this has happened, maybe we were even involved in the telling.

Going to your brother, one on one is for the purpose of 'gaining your brother'. One can see this from the context and the way it is written. If it is just for the sake of airing out your grievance with him, there would be no need to do the next phase of taking one or two others with you.

When coupled with Matthew 5:24 one can see Jesus' strong emphasis is on reconciliation and nothing less. One can see it is so important that unless you have spent effort to reconcile, you might as well forget your prayers being answered. He's saying don't even think about talking to me until you've settled matters with your brother.

Matthew 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Matthew 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

What we are talking about here, is if you harmed or injured or sinned against your brother or sister in any way and you know it because your brother or sister told you about it, then you best go first and try to reconcile with your brother before you offer your gift to God, because if you do not, God will not hear you.

Matthew 18:15-17 is the instruction for the person who has been wronged by another person and Matthew 5:23-24 is the instruction for the person who has done the wrong thing to another person.

Reconciliation between people is of the utmost importance to God, but it cannot take place unless both parties follow the instructions intended for them in the Bible.

When we use Matthew 18:15-17 to try to restore a brother or sister to the Kingdom of God and/or to friendship, there is only so much we can do on our own. We go to our brother or sister and try to tell them what the problem is, but if they do not even want to acknowledge what they did to us then they are not sorry and they will continue to do the same thing to us and/or others. This would mean that you have not been able to restore this brother or sister back to the Kingdom of God and/or to friendship.

When you apply Matthew 18:15-17 or it's principles to straighten out a matter between you and a brother or a sister, please don't feel as if you have failed when you are unable to restore that brother or sister back to the Kingdom of God and/or to friendship, because there is more to the instruction.

One of the main and leading reasons why there are so many splits in the Church of God today and why there are so many problems in the world, is because most people do not want to admit they even did anything wrong to injure or hurt another person. You can go to a person as Matthew 18:15-17 says and we should because it is a command of God. But even when you follow that instruction in Matthew 18:15-17 to the minutest detail of the instruction you will in many cases fail to restore that brother or sister to the Kingdom of God and/or to friendship, and the reason is that people do not want to admit that they have done anything wrong to harm or injure another person.

Reconciliation between people will never happen unless both people involved follow the instructions which God gives to them in the Bible. The injured party is to follow the instructions given in Matthew 18:15-17 and the perpetrator of the infraction or crime is to follow the instruction as given in Matthew 5:23-24. In today's world you will find more of the Matthew 18:15-17 instruction being carried out than you will the Matthew 5:23-24. Many people whether in the church or not in the church have the attitude when confronted that the injured party should just get over it and move on. If the injured party has followed the instructions in Matthew 18:15-17 then God continues to work with them as they followed the instruction given. When the perpetrator of the injury or crime does not follow the instruction given in Matthew 5:23-24 then God cuts them off. Why does God cut them off? God cuts them off because they are in no way sorry for what they have done. When you injure another person in anyway, you commit a crime not only against the other person, but also against God himself. That means that you must repent to God for that crime as well as to your brother or sister who you have injured.

With that understanding one can also see the frame of mind we should be in when going to our brother. Have we always gone with the frame of mind of Galatians 6:1-3? Have we always approached our brother by admitting our faults to him as well? How strongly have we desired him to be back in good terms with us? Let's be honest, and I think if we're really honest about it, we would have to admit many times we went to him in a grudging manner, where we say to ourselves "it says tell him his fault" and so here I am, I told him his fault and now it's up to him. Well now... really... did we really live up to the intent of the instruction?.. hardly.

Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Galatians 6:3 For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.

In this set of scriptures we need to zero in on Galatians 6:1. When we approach our brother to tell him of his fault, we need to be truthful in telling him. In approaching him in meekness, it should be done in humility (without pride or arrogance), but certainly there will be emotion shown according to the infraction and the humbleness or lack of humbleness shown by the perpetrator of the crime. If the perpetrator of the crime is going to sit there with a smirk on his face and tell you he has a totally clear conscience because he has done nothing to you, then the emotions of the injured party will humanly run any where from anger to humiliation to hurt or deep concern for the other person. The perpetrator also has a responsibility to accept rebuke from a brother or sister.

In Proverbs 9:8, reprove and rebuke are the same, Strong's #3198. A scorner is an arrogant person, he is the one who sits there telling you that he has done nothing wrong to you when in fact you caught him doing the very act. He is the one that judges that you are guilty because you are judging him or accusing him of a sin which he is clearly guilty of. In other words he tries to turn the infraction onto you and make you look like the guilty party when in fact he is the guilty party. In Matthew 23, Christ himself rebuked the Pharisees in a display of anger and the Pharisees in question here did not heed Christ's rebuke because they were so arrogant and not open to any instruction from Christ. Anyone who held to this attitude of arrogance later on participated also in the actual crucifixion death of Christ as an arrogant person will not accept instruction or rebuke and will carry a grudge to the point of murder sometimes. You will not get anywhere in the reconciliation process with such a person, so rebuke does no good. Only a humble or wise person (one with morals, a person following Christ) will accept a rebuke and deal with it according to scripture. Proverbs 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

We should always use the Matthew 18:15-17 instruction in going to our brother, no matter what the attitude is of the one we are about to rebuke, but Proverbs 9:8 shows us which person will accept the rebuke and work towards reconciliation with us and which one will not work with us. The arrogant hypocritical one that sat there at our Matthew 18:15-17 meeting and told us we were the problem for even daring to judge our brother as having sinned is the one that you will get no place with in the process of reconciliation because he is sitting there with a smirk on his face telling you that he has a clear conscience and has done nothing at all wrong to you. He is the one that is telling you that you must first confess your faults to him before he will even consider looking at his own faults or sins which he has committed against you. An arrogant person is a very unsorry, unrepentant person who cares nothing for the physical well being of others nor can he even see the injured parties pain which he has caused. He is totally void of love for others.

When it says in Galatians 6:1 that you who are spiritual should restore such a one considering yourself, what is it talking about? What is being said here is that you need to examine yourself to see if you are doing the same thing which you are about to rebuke another person for. If you are, you are a hypocrite. If you are not then it also goes on to say that in rebuking another person, you need to also consider whether you will injure or harm yourself by getting involved in the doing of the same sin that you are about to rebuke in another person. In other words, if you once had a problem with being drunk all the time but repented of that sin a long time ago, are you now strong enough spiritually in being away from that sin for a period of time to rebuke a brother or sister caught in the same sin as you once had and be able to not once again be caught up in this sin as you once were before you repented?

I think we can safely say, unless we recognize the 'beam in our own eye' ...when speaking with our brother, the chances are slim on our reconciliation progress. But if we do go... acknowledging our own faults, we will be successful 99% of the time. If we do it right, there won't be a need to take one or two others with you. You will have gained your brother the very first time you go.

Arlan claims here that when we go to our brother or sister according to Matthew 18:15-17 that we need to go there acknowledging our own faults (sins) to the perpetrator. After having dealt with him in regard to a matter of sin which he was committing against us, we can tell you that he clearly holds the injured party to this commandment of Arlan. No where in Matthew 18:15-17 does it say that the injured party is to come to the perpetrator of the crime confessing their faults (sins) to him (the perpetrator).

Suppose that you are a victim of rape and you want to confront your rapist for your own healing process. So what do you do, go to the rapist and say I am sorry, I am at fault for being in my own bed when you broke my triple locked door and came into my bedroom in the middle of the night and held me at gun point as you raped me and this will make the perpetrator more willing to confess or acknowledge his sin? Think about it.

Arlan Weight's article:

If you're not successful when you privately go to your brother, then tell it to the minister and take him with you. Is this what Jesus says? Let's read it again.

"But if he will not hear you then take with you one or two more." What? One or two more... no mention of a minister, not even a deacon? But most often isn't this the way it happens? If at first you didn't succeed, the idea is to let the minister know and he then, if he wants to, can bring a deacon along? Isn't this the way it usually is done. Isn't this the way you remember it? Maybe you've personally experienced this scenario.

This is just another area where we fail to follow explicitly the instruction. If it doesn't say take the minister, it means just that. Sometimes the Bible speaks as eloquently in what it doesn't say, as well as what it does say. We must not read into it something that isn't there! It says "one or two more", not necessarily the minister. But why not? Why not take the minister? Why not take a deacon?

Let's ponder this question for a moment by putting ourselves in the shoes of the person who committed the 'trespass' ...the person with whom we are trying to reconcile with. How does he or she view your coming to him? Does he view it with disdain in that your coming to him is to simply point out his mistakes or shortcomings? How did you present your case to him when you went to him privately? Did you do it with 'meekness, considering your faults' also?

As was mentioned above, most often if it's done this way, your success to reconcile is most often guaranteed. But because you went to him merely to point out his faults you were not well received. And now you're coming with someone who is viewed as having authority... the ministry. It can be intimidating.

The whole intent of Matthew 18:15-17 is to go to your brother or sister and tell them their fault (sin), first privately, then with one or two witnesses and then to the church if need be. It all is being done for the intent of reconciliation and if that doesn't work, for the intent of letting others know for their own safety in dealing with the perpetrator. An unrepentant perpetrator is a threat to other people, this is why we do not hide the crime or keep it secret.

Arlan Weight's article:

Again, try to think of it in this way, by taking the other side. How would you want to be entreated? With a show of force? Or gently? By taking the ministry are we coming to him gently? Think about it... lf we take the minister, deacon, or someone viewed by everyone to be an authority… are we coming with meekness? Hardly!

So this is the first thing. How are we approaching our brother, with meekness or with force? The second thing is this. What is the purpose of taking one or two others? Is it to make sure you have enough fire power? Is it an effort to make sure the one who trespassed is firmly convinced of his trespass? Let's look at the instruction again.

"Take one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established". Read it again. It's simply to witness... to record the words being said. As far as we can tell here the witnesses are not even needed to help out in the dispute. They are meant to be objective bystanders... to make sure "every word is established". Maybe some of the fault is with the one going to the brother. Maybe they can see some of the 'beam' in his own eye.

So let's say, up to this point you've done every thing explicitly the way the instruction says. You've gone to your brother privately first. As far as you know, no one even knows there's a trespass. And you considered your own faults and you really want to be on good terms again, but the person simply rejected you. So you persisted and took one or two others, maybe even friends of the person who committed the trespass, and still he or she is not hearing you. So what then?

If you have no physical witness that you can take with you to fulfill step two here, then take a tape recorder and record the meeting. In most states it is perfectly legal to record a conversation which you yourself are a part of. What it is illegal to do is to take the tape after you have recorded it and publicly play it in order to discredit or harm the character of another person in a malicious way. In other words, even though you now have a tape recording you should only keep it to prove what happened in that meeting and if needed at some point in time to show the perpetrator how he and you both acted during your Matthew 18:15-17 meeting according to step #3. Courts use such tapes as evidence in trials all the time. This is what the tape is meant for in the first place, is to be a witness. If someone wants to see your proof in regard to what happened in this meeting, it is perfectly okay to privately play the tape for someone, but you need to always keep the tape in your control and possession lest another person take it and make it for public use which it was not meant for.

Recording conversations of people you are not in a conversation with or recording conversations across state lines even if they are your own are illegal in some areas. Call your state attorney generals office before making tape recordings. They can tell you for free in most states what the law in your state says in regard to tape recordings of conversations or private meetings.

Arlan Weight's article:

"And if he neglect to hear them, tell it to the church"... The word ‘church' comes from the Greek word 'ekklesia' meaning 'that which is called out'.

Over the years we have all been taught that this is the time when you bring in the ministry. This is the time when you turn it over to him. But is it really? Look closely. The word 'ekklesia' is used 115 times in the New Testament. Three times it is translated 'assembly' and 112 times 'church'. It is the same word as 'church' in Acts 2:47 "The Lord added to the church"... Acts 5:11, "great fear came upon all the church"... Acts 7:38, "This was he that was in the church in the wilderness"...

In every case the word 'church', from it's context, cannot be viewed in any other way but by that of an assembly of people 'ekklesia', the called out ones. Could it be... could it really be that we have had a bit of misunderstanding here? All these years we thought, or so we've been taught that the ‘church' was to be the ministry. Could it really be that we have been wrong about this? Could it really mean tell it to the congregation of believers?

Telling it to the minister alone is like seeing him as representing the church. But does he? What is the church anyway? Is it not the body of Christ, (Eph. 1:23) having many members? (1 Cor. 12:12) Again let's not try to read into it something that is not there.

So in revealing the problem to the church how should it be done? Let's try to envision it this way as to an assembled group and as an effort to reconcile, not to establish your own position. What could be the advantage of this? First of all everyone hears the same word spoken. Secondly you have now harnessed the entire assembly in this effort, other friends and acquaintances, who are as interested as you are, to see the person back in the fellowship. Everyone knows the whole story, not bits and pieces and not done behind anyone's back.

There is another reason why we are to take certain matters to the church and we need to be able to discern as to when we will and will not do this. If the infraction is small, such as a dispute over grammar or something which is not considered to be a sin, you may want to stop at step #1 or step #2 of Matthew 18:15-17. If it is a sin such as lying, rape, incest, driving while drunk, murder or any number of other crimes which are clearly sin, you will want to carry it all the way through to step #3 if both parties are in the church. If the perpetrator is not a part of the body of Christ and has not committed a crime, then you may have to drop it after step #1 or step #2 as taking it to the church for them will carry no weight anyway. If the perpetrator has committed an illegal act whether in the church or not, you need to report it to the proper authorities and they will take care of pointing out the person and his crime to web sites and newspapers taking it to society rather than the church which is the same principle when it applies to warning people about a person who can harm others in some way. A word of caution is to make sure that a person is absolutely guilty of a crime before you report him or her to the authorities for any crime, as once in the system an innocent person looses just as much as a guilty person does in the way of reputation and trust of others.

Take a look at Galatians 6:1-2. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ".

Yes, indeed it makes good sense to tell it to the 'ekklesia'... the called out ones. There may indeed be someone in the entire group who is more qualified to go to him or her. Someone least expected who may be more spiritual who can make all the difference, maybe a more personal friend, not to mention now you've opened it up so everyone can pray for the reconciliation. So now what? What if all the effort is to no avail, the trespasser still remains cold? What then?

“Let Him Be To You As An Heathen Man And A Publican”…

The key word here is Let. Cut him some slack. Let him have his own life. Don't force him into trying to be or do something he just doesn't want to do. Let him live his life in freedom to choose. This is God's way.

So then what should be our relationship to the person? How should we relate? Should we shun or avoid him or her? Think long and hard about this issue. What kind of thoughts does it engender in the other person?

Years ago I can remember it being said, if we avoid contact with persons disfellowshipped, it would make them feel ashamed or put them in a repentant mood and they will want to return. Think again!... Instead of pointing them in the direction of apology, it only hardened their resolve to stay away. Shunning or avoiding people sends a clear message to them. It says "Don't come too close, you'll defile me! For I am holier than you!" (Isa. 65:5) What does God think of it? "They stifle me. Day in and day out they infuriate me."

Arlan has pretty much been shunning and avoiding us since mid-summer. When a brother does not want to reconcile with another brother or sister, this is what they do. They refuse to meet with the injured party and they avoid coming anywhere near to them if at all possible.

So then “Let him be to you as a heathen man and a Publican“ simply means let him alone, but treat him with the same dignity and respect you should have for all human beings. Don't shun him and don't carry a grudge.

"Don't take the law into your own hands. Instead, feed your enemy if he is hungry. If he is thirsty, give him something to drink and you will be heaping coals of fire on his head. In other words, he will feel ashamed of himself for what he has done to you. Don't let evil get the upper hand, but conquer evil by doing good." (Rom. 12:20-21)

If the intent is to bring awareness of the wrongdoing to the one who has trespassed, this is the way it is to be done, by doing good to them, not by shunning or avoiding them... just the opposite. Even after you've done all of the above steps, this last approach remains and is to be in force as long as you both shall live. It is the last attempt, but who can tell, if after a long time, the offender will really come to himself and he or she will have a change of heart.

Was all the effort worth it? Indeed it was! If, after a lifetime of effort... if it takes that long, will it have been worth it? Absolutely. Reread again God's will in seeking out them that go astray. What is the final end?… Great Joy!... greater than that of the one who went not astray.

"If a man has a hundred sheep, and one wanders away and is lost, what will he do: Won't he leave the ninety-nine others and go out into the hills to search for the lost one? And if he finds it, he will rejoice over it more than the ninety-nine others safe at home! Just so, it is not my Father's will that even one of these little ones should perish."

When we look at Christ's instruction and compare it to our actual performance we can see why people feel jaded or betrayed. It comes down to the fact of not carrying out the instruction explicitly. Often, we put our own twist on it or read into it something that's not there.

If we deeply value the fact that it is God who does the calling and causes the repentance, and if we deeply recognize our own failures and need for forgiveness, we can then be useful tools in God's hands to... "Go to your brother"

In conclusion, we do not believe in disfellowshipment as is practiced in today's world. That is disfellowshipment for matters which are not sin, nor do we believe in total avoidance or shunning of another person. If you have taken a matter to a brother or sister according to Matthew 18:15-17 and no reconciliation took place, this does not mean that you get even, go out of your way to avoid the other person or go out of your way to shun the other person. In practice one should just leave the person alone after you have completed the process as stated in Matthew 18:15-17. When you see him or her in a store or on the street or even at another persons house, be cordial in saying hi, but do not feel obligated to hold a conversation with the person which pretends to be as if you are long lost friends or something. In other words be friendly (cordial) when it is called for, other wise just don't go and bother the other person as he or she has made it clear that they don't want to reconcile with you at this point in time.

If you know this person is in need of clothing, food, shelter, or medical assistance, do not hesitate to help even if you must do it from a distance. What you need to keep in mind here is that you did all that God instructed you to do in order to try to reconcile with your brother or sister by going through the process as stated in Matthew 18:15-17 and God can work with you. The other person who refused to reconcile with you is in direct opposition to God according to Matthew 5:23-24 and God is not even listening to him or her at this point unless he or she changes (repents) and comes to reconcile with you.

Many in the world today believe that people should just forgive and forget and that will take care of all problems which arise in life. In other words, sweep the problem under the rug or throw it in the garbage. Out of sight, out of mind, then we don't need to deal with the problem, so it does not occur again. We will venture to say that the world is in the mess that it is in, because not too many people ever reconcile with each other, not even many who claim to be in God's church. Many people are familiar with repentance before baptism in order to receive forgiveness, but how many understand that there are requirements in this regard among people also?

In regard to forgiveness, we are to forgive others not just seven times, but seventy times seven, but did you also know that forgiving another person is contingent only on if that other person repents? Read it for yourself in Luke 17:3 "Take heed to yourselves; If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." In other words we do it just like God and Christ. If a person is sinning against us, we rebuke him as per Matthew 18:15-17, and if he repents according to Matthew 5:23-24 then we forgive him, but if he is not sorry we just let him be, so he can do whatever he wants after the completion of Matthew 18:17 if we are able to carry the instruction that far as stated earlier. We do not go out of our way to harm this unrepentant person in any way, but neither do we have to pretend to be friends with him either in or out of church. Just simply leave him alone and when you meet him on the street or elsewhere, just treat him as you would treat any other stranger you would meet on the street, because without reconciliation that is what you are, two strangers passing. Many times we help people who are strangers and that also applies here. In most cases you will not have to worry about the uncomfortableness of being in the presence of this unrepentant person, because we find that when you rebuke a person and that person does not want to reconcile with you then they are the ones who shun and avoid you, mostly because you have their number so to speak and they know it, so they don't want to be anywhere near you, lest you remind them of their sin, sometimes just by your very presence.

Our instruction from God in Matthew 18:17 is to take the matter to the church (or society). If verses 15 and 16 do not bare any fruits of repentance from the person committing the sin or error in light of cautions given earlier in this disclaimer. In other words, under certain circumstances we are instructed or commanded to do Matthew 18:17 when it is appropriate to warn people of a danger to their physical or spiritual lives. When a church disfellowships people on a regular basis and for matters which are not sin, people need to be warned. When individuals do not want to repent of sin which is going to harm other people, then people need to be warned. How we put out this warning is between us and God.

In the matter of Arlan Weight, we have been dealing with a certain sin which he has been committing against us for quite some time. To date he refuses to repent (reconcile) with us. We believe that putting a needed disclaimer on this article written by him back in 2001 clearly shows the sin he continues to commit, because there are many discrepancies between what he says and what he actually does in practice. We can see at least 4 different sins which come into play here, but we will leave it up to the reader to find them and hopefully take the Biblical approach of judging righteous judgment. (John 7:24) For those who hear the matter and are able to see that Arlan has these sins, they should be able to encourage this brother to see his fault and error for the purpose of gaining a brother to God's Kingdom. For unrepented sin will lead to destruction. If he decides to repent (reconcile) with us as he is instructed to do in Matthew 5:23-24 then we will add that to the end of this disclaimer and rejoice that we have gained our brother.

Contrary to what rumors may be going around in regard to this matter, we have not disfellowshipped Arlan or anyone else from our Sabbath Services or Fellowship, but neither will we allow people to come in here and disrespect others or use cuss words during the course of Sabbath Services or Fellowship. Arlan felt we should allow this type of behavior to continue and thus walked out of Sabbath Services on July 16, 2005 and within one week started his own Saturday Meetings at the local library to the exclusion of us. We would hope that Arlan would at some point reconcile with us, but has not as of the date of this printing. Please let this be both a warning to the Church of God and a plea to Arlan to repent (reconcile) with his brethren. May prayers be said in regard to this matter through out the Church of God through out the world. If anyone needs more details in regard to this matter please ask and we will accommodate you if we are able to.