When Matthew 18 Is Used to Silence Survivors: Abuse, Power, and Institutional Cover-Up in the Church

Matthew 18:15–17 is one of the most frequently cited passages in Christian responses to conflict and wrongdoing. In its simplest reading, it outlines a process for addressing harm: speak privately, involve others if needed, and seek communal accountability. 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 chapter 18 verses 15-17. NIV

In equal, consensual relationships, such a process may support repair, but in high-control churches and abusive systems, Matthew 18 is often repurposed into something very different: a mechanism for retraumatisation, silencing, and institutional self-protection. For survivors of abuse, this misuse of scripture actively compounds harm.

Abuse Is Not a Conflict Between Equals

A core problem with how Matthew 18 is applied in abusive church contexts is that it assumes relational equality. However, abuse does not occur between equals.

Research on abuse and coercive control consistently shows that harm is defined not only by behaviour, but by power imbalance (Stark, 2007). When one person holds spiritual authority, leadership status, social capital, or institutional backing, the dynamics fundamentally change.

Yet survivors are often told they must:

• Confront their abuser directly

• do so privately

• Remain calm, forgiving, and “gracious”

• Avoid involving others prematurely

From a trauma-informed perspective, this expectation is deeply problematic. Trauma research shows that survivors frequently experience fear responses, dissociation, memory fragmentation, and nervous system dysregulation when faced with reminders of harm (Herman, 1992; van der Kolk, 2014). Requiring direct confrontation with a perpetrator, particularly one who holds power, can trigger significant distress, psychological harm, and in some circumstances the threat of physical harm.

What is framed as “biblical obedience” often results in forced proximity to danger.

When a survivor cannot comply with this expectation, the narrative subtly shifts:

• The abuse becomes a “misunderstanding”

• The survivor becomes “unforgiving” or “rebellious”

• The harm becomes secondary to the process

The responsibility for repair is transferred from the person who caused harm to the person who was harmed.

Why Women Are Disproportionately Harmed by Matthew 18

The misuse of Matthew 18 does not affect all survivors equally. Women, in particular, are disproportionately harmed by how this passage is applied within high-control church systems. This is not incidental, it is structural.

In Christian churches that operate within gendered hierarchies where men disproportionately hold leadership, theological authority, and decision-making power, women are socialised toward submission, accommodation, and relational harmony. These dynamics significantly intensify the power imbalance already present in abuse situations.

Research on coercive control highlights that women are more likely to experience harm in contexts where authority is gendered and obedience is moralised (Stark, 2007). When Matthew 18 is applied without power analysis, it intersects with long-standing teachings that frame women as:

• Responsible for maintaining peace

• Morally obligated to forgive

• Spiritually suspect if they express anger or dissent

• Prone to deception, emotionality, or exaggeration

As a result, women who disclose abuse are often scrutinised not only for what they report but for how they embody gendered expectations while doing so. Women are expected to:

• Confront gently

• Speak softly

• Avoid public disclosure

• Prioritise reconciliation over safety

• Remain relationally available to those who harmed them

Any deviation from this script is framed as evidence of spiritual failure rather than a trauma response. Studies on victim credibility show that women are more likely to be disbelieved or blamed when their disclosures challenge male authority or institutional stability (Salter, 2013). In church contexts, this disbelief is often spiritualised. Women are labelled:

• Bitter rather than harmed

• Divisive rather than truthful

• Unforgiving rather than boundaried

When Matthew 18 is invoked women are frequently required to confront male leaders or abusers privately, despite clear power differentials and the increase risk of retaliation, character assassination, and further harm.

At a systems level, women’s disclosures are more readily reframed as:

• Relational conflict

• Emotional misunderstanding

• Personality clashes

In patriarchal religious systems the cumulative impact is profound. Women are not only harmed by abuse itself but by the gendered theology and processes that demand silence, compliance, and spiritual self-erasure in the name of unity.

When Matthew 18 is used this way, it does not simply misapply scripture. It reinforces a system in which women’s safety is negotiable, their voices are conditional, and their credibility is always provisional.

Matthew 18 at the Individual Perpetrator Level

At an individual level, abusive leaders often benefit directly from Matthew 18 being interpreted narrowly and rigidly.

This framing:

• Discourages witnesses

• Isolates the survivor

• Keeps disclosure private

• Limits accountability

Abusers rarely rely on overt force. Psychological and spiritual abuse often depend on image management, plausible deniability, and victim self-doubt (Salter, 2013). When survivors are told they must confront the perpetrator alone:

• The abuser controls the narrative

• Denial and minimisation are easier

• Retaliation is more likely

• The survivor’s safety is compromised

If the survivor later speaks to others they are accused of “doing it wrong,” even though the initial process offered no genuine protection. This aligns with research showing that institutions often misinterpret abuse disclosures as relational conflict, rather than recognising patterns of coercion and control (Doyle, 2021).

Matthew 18 as an Institutional Containment Strategy

Beyond individual perpetrators, Matthew 18 is frequently used at a systems level to manage risk, not to protect people, but to protect institutions.

Survivors report being told:

“You didn’t follow the biblical process.”

“You went public too soon.”

“You’ve caused division.”

“This should have stayed private.”

These responses mirror what trauma researchers describe as institutional betrayal - when an organisation fails to respond appropriately to harm and instead acts in ways that deepen trauma (Freyd, 2018). Institutional betrayal is especially damaging because it occurs in environments where trust and moral authority are central. Faith communities are uniquely vulnerable to this dynamic because spiritual language can be used to sanctify silence.

Matthew 18 becomes a procedural shield:

• Abuse is handled “internally”

• Reporting to external authorities is discouraged

• Leaders determine credibility

• Outcomes are opaque and non-transparent

Research on high-control groups and cultic systems shows that internal justice processes are often designed to preserve hierarchy and loyalty rather than accountability (Lalich & Tobias, 2006; Lifton, 1961). In these environments, disclosure is treated as threat.

Why This Is Retraumatising

For survivors, being subjected to Matthew 18 in this way often replicates the original abuse dynamics:

• Loss of agency

• Pressure to comply

• Fear of punishment

• Spiritualised blame

Judith Herman (1992) identifies loss of control and loss of voice as central features of trauma. When a church response removes choice, restricts speech, and frames compliance as righteousness, it reinforces the very conditions that trauma creates. Survivors are not just harmed by the original abuse, they are harmed again by the system that claims to care.

What Matthew 18 Cannot Be Used to Override

No ethical or trauma-informed application of scripture can override:

• Safety

• Consent

• Power awareness

• The right to external reporting

• The reality of trauma

Abuse is not resolved through forced reconciliation. Unity that requires self-betrayal is not healing. Even within theological scholarship many argue that Matthew 18 was never intended as a rigid legal code, but as a relational guideline within mutual community contexts - not a tool for managing abuse (Oakley, 2019).

A Necessary Reframe

If a “biblical process” endangers the victim, protects those with power, discourages disclosure, or punishes truth-telling, then it is being misused.

Naming harm is not gossip.

Seeking safety is not rebellion.

Declining retraumatisation is not sin.

High-control church systems do not merely fail survivors, they often theologise the mechanisms that keep abuse hidden.

Survivors are right to trust their bodies, their instincts, and their need for safety - even when scripture is used to tell them otherwise.

---

Support services:

• 1800 Respect national helpline: 1800 737 732

• Women's Crisis Line: 1800 811 811

• Men's Referral Service: 1300 766 491

• Lifeline (24 hour crisis line): 131 114

• Relationships Australia: 1300 364 277

---

References

Freyd, J. J. (2018). Institutional betrayal and institutional courage. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 19(5), 498–509.

Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. Basic Books.

Lalich, J., & Tobias, M. (2006). Take back your life: Recovering from cults and abusive relationships. Bay Tree Publishing.

Lifton, R. J. (1961). Thought reform and the psychology of totalism. Norton.

Oakley, J. (2019). Abuse, accountability, and the misuse of reconciliation texts. Journal of Spiritual Abuse, 10(3), 245–260.

Salter, M. (2013). Organised sexual abuse. Routledge.

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.

van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score. Viking.

---

Elise Heerde is a qualified trauma-informed counsellor and coach who helps people heal from religious trauma and high-control systems. With lived experience, professional training, and a passion for creating safe, judgment-free spaces with a splash of sarcasm. Elise blends authenticity and hope in all she offers. Co-founder of The Religious Trauma Collective (Australia/New Zealand). Author of Holy Hell: Saved So Hard I Needed Therapy https://www.eliseheerde.com/