Trinity Bible Church Not Doing Matthew 18 on Steve Lawson? Some Updates
The With All Wisdom Podcast has revealed some new information about the Steve Lawson fracas in their latest episode, with Pastors Derek Brown and Cliff McManis insisting, among other things, that Trinity Bible Church is not pursuing Matthew 18-style church discipline against their former Lead preacher, and that the question of Steve Lawson’s membership is far from “settled” despite what certain sub-church groups have declared.
Throughout the show, the two hosts tie their commentary back to their three main points from previous episodes:
- Steve Lawson was not a pastor or elder at Trinity Bible Church.
- Trinity Church is not doing or pursuing Matthew 18 with Steve Lawson.
- Trinity has a defective ecclesiology at the core, seen clearly by their well-established practice of using a rotating list of guest teachers rather than their pastors and elders to preach the sermon and lead through the word.
The hosts offer that those three points were the thrust of their message and that comments about Lawson’s membership were “kind of a subpoint of a footnote of an afterthought.” Despite seeing their quotes about Lawson’s non-membership being repudiated by Josh Buice and then widely circulated by the masses, they reject the suggestion that they’ve retracted their claims in the face of opposition.
I wanted to say this in light of G3’s updated statement that they made on November 14th, or whatever it was; it was last Thursday, maybe. They had an article, but they also had a video presentation, and one of the statements that jumped out at me was, quote, ‘the facts are clear’, end quote, about Lawson’s membership.
The facts are clear…
And I immediately thought, “well, no, they’re not” because of what I know, because of what you and I know, the sources we have. We have inside sources as well. They quoted, apparently they got information from two people inside the church, and I had at least two, now I’ve got more than two sources, who are very unclear.
…Our three main issues that we disclosed that, by the way, were not mentioned in the G3 statement, which was interesting. They were just neglected. They should have been mentioned.”
They also add:
“So, just for the record, no, we haven’t retracted that statement. We have not recanted. So, as a matter of fact, I had a member of the church, of Trinity Bible Church, listen to that podcast that was in question. He listened to it twice, and he said, and he’s an active member, he’d been there six years, and he says, I have no beef with anything you and Derek said. You should stand by it.”
…We’ve done further research, and I’ve talked to two members of the church, current members, who couldn’t verify that Steve Lawson was a member of the church. So it’s a mystery. It hasn’t been validated. And G3 said that the ‘facts are clear that Steve Lawson was a member’, but Trinity church has yet to come out and say Steve Lawson was a member. Steve Lawson has yet to make a public statement saying that we were members. And also, not only that, they haven’t defined what their membership process is.”
Relating specifically to Matthew 18, the host’s comment line up with our sources, who say:
“We also said that Trinity church was not doing or pursuing Matthew 18 with Steve Lawson, and most people didn’t know that either. And that changes the whole conversation. And again, how do I know that? Because I called the church and the church staff member who knows, and that’s been verified since then. They are not doing Matthew 18 with Steve Lawson.
Calling out a bit of hypocrisy, they press on:
It’s not only unwise, I think it’s wholly unbiblical for a man to be the lead preacher who is not an elder at the congregation. And yet that’s how this church was structured. I think it contributed to this fallout. There’s a lack of accountability. There is a kind of propping up of a man, which is ironic when they came out with their initial statement, verbal statement, and they followed it up with the sermon the next Sunday.
The elder who spoke said that “you don’t come to church to hear a man.” And I thought, well, isn’t that interesting? Because that’s exactly how you structured your church, is that you are coming to church to hear a man. And now you’re tasting the bitter fruit of how you’ve structured things. And so you’re elevating the preaching in a way that I think is artificial and not fitting for the local church. You’re kind of detaching preaching from pastoral ministry.
Speaking of being the lead preacher, an outside source who talked to leaders in the church told us that while Lawson was a lead preacher at the time of his implosion, “the goal was to see him become an elder in the days to come.” This would be pretty convenient, given that Lawson had six years to get his act together, but he never did.
Furthermore, whereas most churches have a member-accessible church directory, the hosts allege that Trinity had no such offering.
Here’s another newsflash of a fact that as of two days ago, Trinity Bible Church has no church directory or record of who the current members are. So, if you’re a member at Trinity church, you can’t look up a directory and find out who the other members are because there isn’t one, and they’ve admitted that.
And another revelation, with a point:
“Another important update regarding the membership at Trinity Bible of why it’s in question is, here’s another fact, members have reported that neither Steve Lawson nor his wife have even been to Trinity Bible Church since September 19th when this became public.
They haven’t even been there. They’re gone. Missing in action. That’s information that we’ve been able to gather from actual people at Trinity, at the church. So as of yesterday, that’s nine weeks, neither of them have been at the church. If they were members, in the way that we talk about membership, they would be at the church because the shepherds then have the responsibility for caring for their soul, shepherding them through this process, dealing with whatever that sin was that Steve committed.
We’ve had multiple situations at our church where adultery was involved with our members, and both parties, because they didn’t flee our church, they remained at the church. We’ve had sinners, unrepentant, recalcitrant members remain at our church Sunday after Sunday while they’re going through the discipline process, all the way up to step four, which we appreciate so that we can work with them and pray with them and be patient.
So that puts a huge question mark about the nature of what membership they’re talking about when they haven’t even been there in nine weeks. Who is caring for the soul of Steve Lawson’s wife? Who’s shepherding her? I don’t know.”
At this time, only the leadership team at Trinity Bible Church can clear up the confusion over all these questions. Yet given all that’s transpired in the last nine weeks, we would need more than a mere word or statement from their leadership team before we take anything they say at face value.
About Author
I don’t think Matthew 18 applies anyway. 1 Cor 5 applies. Matthew 18 is basically an argument for church “small claims courts” such as Paul also argued for in 1 Cor 6, which ultimately is an idea that died out because it cannot possibly work; maybe it could work in the first century Jewish church, but it would never work in the Gentile church, not even in the 1st century. If you are suing someone to pay for replacing a tool they broke when you let them borrow it, then you need to sue before an institution with the ability to force them to pay, i.e. the government, not before the church which has no power to do anything but excommunicate them as a “publican and heathen,” which doesn’t get you your money. So it was an idealistic idea that Paul and Matthew had, but it failed and was forgotten. Matthew 18 does not apply in any situation of church government; only 1 Cor 5 does.
Jeffery, what’s sad is that you have denied the scripture, in favor of government, with absolutely zero yield for your efforts, because you don’t know how most civil lawsuits work …
In most cases, the government does not take from the loser and write a check to the winner. That’s not how it works. The government only gives the winner the legal permission to take action to collect. Then it is left up to the winner as to whether or not they want to take that action. And in most states, they only have a certain period of time in which they can do so. If the statute of limitations expires before they take action to collect, then they no longer have permission to legally collect. As far as I am aware, the only time the government will take action to collect directly from the loser, is when the government itself is a party in the suit and on the winning side of the judgement.
What you’re talking about is more akin to debtors prison. Where the government forces one to pay, and if they can’t, they’re punished. We don’t have that sort of thing in the United States.
Frankly, I can’t think of any reason why you would make such a hyperbolic statement and claim, rejecting Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 6 outright, and claiming the scripture is wrong, unless your intent is to troll …
I can verify this article as true. I can tell you as one who attended Trinity Bible Church of Dallas for nearly a year, and also many of Lawson’s Thursday morning Bible studies at Herb’s Coffee House, Lawson was never a Pastor or elder in this church. In fact, the church was — and still is — without a pastor. This is the primary reason I left the church.
Kent Stainback is the lead elder there, and I remember asking him in December of 2021 when they plan to call a pastor because the church was growing quite dramatically (this was when they were still meeting in the coffee shop on the Lord’s Day). His response was the following: “Well, Steve Lawson has committed to preaching 31 Sundays in 2022, why do we need to call a pastor?” I was flabbergasted.
And yet, the three elders were not pastoring this church — they were actually quite aloof and not making themselves readily available to the congregants. It was kind of a free-for-all with congregants coming and going without any pastoral care or leadership. From what I understand, it remains the same today. They continue to call guest preachers from around the region (including from Master’s Seminary, such as Austin Duncan and Paul Twiss (even John MacArthur has preached there)), but haven’t yet called a staff pastor (I believe they had made an offer to one, but it was declined).
Apparently though, Lawson was on the payroll of the church; how much, I don’t know. But his salary or stipend was rescinded when Lawson came forward to the elders about his indiscretions.
Lastly, what was said in a previous article about Lawson preaching on Sunday mornings and then quickly leaving is true. He never showed any shepherding care for the congregants. It was disheartening to some who looked up to him and genuinely wanted and needed a Pastor’s warm care and concern for their lives.
Blazius, the early church wasn’t led by single pastors, it was led by elders. There are plenty of things one can criticize at ANY church, but as a member at Trinity, I happen to think that despite the current mess, not having a single lead pastor is not a New Testament reason to leave. I’d FAR rather have more men from the congregation being raised up, trained, and bringing messages.
Also, having attended since 2020 I can’t remember elder Stainback ever being called the lead elder. That’s an obvious misrepresentation. The question is, why are people misrepresenting TBCoD?
I have no desire to get back into a brotherly squabble over this. I stand by my claim that because it is a matter of grievous sexual immorality, it is a 1 Cor. 5 sort of situation, and I’ve already made those arguments. (with forgiveness and our authority to forgive being the primary determining factor, in context with the Lord’s instruction in passages such as Luke 17:3-4) And I stand by my claim that the problem originated with the church hiring a man who was not qualified to be an elder. Teaching sound doctrine is great, but it is not the one and only qualification. And not all teachers are required to have those qualities, and to be in positions of eldership. Evangelists, preachers brought in for revivals, and so on. But it appears I need to clarify that my statements were not and are not, in any way, to imply that Matt. 18 would never apply in any situation or matter of church discipline. That’s over-the-top, over-reactive extreme hyperbole. As the Lord has said, one who refuses to forgive is also sinning (Matt. 6:15, Matt. 18:35, etc.). If there is a sin against us that we have the authority to forgive, and our brother repents of it, then we must forgive him. But as I’ve stated, I do not believe the situation with Lawson is any such situation. No man alive has authority to forgive him for what he has done.
Others will, in turn, hyperbolically react in the other direction and claim there is an obligation to forgive trespasses against us devoid of repentance. No, that’s not what the scripture says. We certainly can, but we’re not obligated to do so, and a in many cases shouldn’t be quick to forgive when there is no repentance, because it would be enabling wrongdoing, and could approach the point of perverting the grace of God into a license for immorality. Matt. 18 must be taken in context. If a brother repents of a trespass against us, then we are absolutely obligated to forgive him. Understanding that requires an understanding of what true repentance means. But you have to understand that if you try to apply Matt. 18 to a situation such as that with Lawson, and he walks in there and repents of his sins against the Lord, what are you going to do? It is the obligation to forgive, when we should forgive and when we have the authority to forgive, that I see as the determining factor. The determining factor is not punishment or the severity of punishment, or even whether or not we feel that justice is served. It’s forgiveness, and how and when we should forgive.
Matthew 18 concerns a private sin between brothers (“If someone sins against you…”). Lawson was a very public figure whose sin was made known to all the world. His sin was as a church leader against Christ and against his church. The process in Matthew 18 is not an absolute process for any and every situation involving sin. If it were, then Paul skips right over it in Titus 3:10-11 and 1 Corinthians 5 and Galatians 2 and 1 Timothy 5 and (it would seem) 2 Thessalonians 3.
There is no exegetical basis for making Matthew 18 a universal absolute without qualification in all sin matters in the church, and such a notion is plainly contradicted in numerous scriptures.
Right, on a prior thread I accidentally said it concisely …
Scripture that is about reconciliation, such as Matt. 18, cannot possibly apply in circumstances where we are specifically told not to associate. We can’t reconcile and disassociate at the same time. But that does not mean the scripture is in conflict. As I see it, that means they are already at the point of “gentile and tax collector”.