re: Matthew 18:15 as used commonly in the contemporary church, I wish to pick a NIT (Not In Text).
The pastor inserts the word "gently" or the idea "gently" into the passage - it isn't there. Nor is it in the Galatians 6:1 passage with which it is commonly linked.
Is this a small matter? In the light of Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32 and Revelation 22:18, I affirm that it is not a small matter. Do I wish to make a formal protest over the insertion - of course NOT ! But privately, I caution the practice of inserting "nice" words into a text. I further affirm that inserting the "nice" word "gently" into this particular text blunts the meaning of the main word "alone" and thus blunts the main emphasis. Admittedly, and cheerfully so, the thrust of the entire passage (Mt. 18:15-18 and linked to verses 19-21 with the word "again") is restoration of fellowship with a "brother." Thus, for me to be contentious over a passage and a sermon that aims to show the Saints how to reconcile with others - - would seem to be a contradiction - - wouldn't it?
The thrust of the passage is on the word "alone" (KJV). The NIV translates this Greek word MONOU with the phrase "just between the two of you." I affirm that inserting the idea of "gently" blunts this main teaching of "privacy." I affirm that the intent of the specific passage and of the larger context is "privacy of direct action" as contrasted with "public and indirect action."
To teach a man to behave in a manly manner and take direct AND private action is the thrust of verse 15. Verse 16 is the NEXT step, but often it is the FIRST step, especially with women (of either sex). "Women" generally take "the" matter up with several other persons and then after building a coalition, accosts the brother with a group action. Why do I pick on "women" ? - - because women generally do not like to confront, nor do they like to take direct action. Inserting the word "gently" into the text resonates with the way a woman would approach this - but it is at the expense of what the passage intends to convey. Further it will exacerbate a (this) major problem of substituting group think for private action in the contemporary church.
Nor is the word "gently" in the linked KJV text of Galations 6:1, but it is used in the NIV text. I affirm that the word used in the NIV is poorly chosen as a translation of PROUTAyTOS. This same word is used in the previous chapter in verse 23, and is similarly poorly translated in the NIV, and it is the same root word PRAEIS used in Matthew 5:5; But which is translated as "meek" in all the named cases of the KJV and in a the particular case of the NIV.
I affirm that the word meek has generally been lost from the common English language, and that it's meaning has been perverted in the church. The word does not mean "weak," nor does it mean "mild," nor does it even mean "humble." It is a robust and strong term used to describe both Moses and Jesus the Christ, and while all these listed words can also be used to describe these two historic men, the word meek, as applied to them, has special and significant meaning that is otherwise lost.
In my studies, I have come to the conclusion that meek is the opposite of ego-driven-ness. So badly have we lost the word from the English language and so perverted have we made it's use in the church, that I can't even find a single opposite without resorting to a made up word. I affirm that a meek person is one who refuses to be insulted, one who refuses to receive a deliberate affront and refuses to take it personally. In short, a meek person is one who is not driven by his own ego, nor is he driven by the ego expectations of others. This working definition cuts straight across the American culture, but exactly fits with both Moses and Christ Jesus. [See also Mt. 22:16 for my extension that "neither is he driven by the ego expectations of others."]
Now, if a speaker wishes to insert the word "gently" into all these texts, he or she, of course, has the liberty to do so "as pastoral advice," but I affirm that to do so will do a disservice to our culture, and especially to the women of our culture - and in the long run, will frustrate the intent (reconciling a brother) of this passage, and of his or her sermon.
Whew, that's a long discussion to a short NIT (Not In Text).
en agape, rjs