In moments of church tension—especially following division—strong language from preachers is often quickly labeled as slander. Yet Scripture draws a far sharper distinction than modern Christian culture tends to allow. The Bible does not equate firm, public rebuke with sinful speech. On the contrary, Jesus Himself models a pattern of confrontation that is direct, public, and severe when leaders persist in unrepentant sin. Understanding this distinction is essential if the church is to remain faithful rather than merely comfortable.
Biblically, slander involves falsehood, malicious intent, and the unnecessary exposure of private matters without redemptive purpose (Prov 10:18; Col 3:8). Truthful statements—spoken with gravity and aimed at correction, warning, or protection—do not meet that definition, even when they are painful. Scripture never condemns truthful rebuke simply because it damages reputation. In fact, when leaders harm the flock through neglect, hypocrisy, or tolerance of sin, Scripture consistently prioritizes the health of the church over the reputations of those in authority.
Jesus’ ministry makes this unmistakably clear. His strongest words were not reserved for pagans or Roman officials, but for religious leaders who claimed spiritual authority while failing to shepherd God’s people faithfully. In Matthew 23, Jesus publicly calls the scribes and Pharisees “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “whitewashed tombs,” and a “brood of vipers.” These were not vague insults; they were specific moral and spiritual indictments tied to concrete failures—blocking people from the kingdom, neglecting justice and mercy, and cultivating outward piety while remaining inwardly corrupt. Scripture never presents these rebukes as slander. Instead, they are shown as necessary warnings spoken out of concern for both the people and the truth.
Crucially, Jesus did not begin with public condemnation. Throughout the Gospels, He repeatedly confronted the religious leaders privately and dialogically—answering questions, exposing inconsistencies, and calling them to repentance (e.g., Matt 21:23–27; John 5:39–47). Only after persistent refusal, evasion, and hostility did His rebuke escalate into public exposure. This mirrors the very process outlined in Matthew 18: private confrontation, followed by broader accountability when repentance does not occur. Public rebuke is not a failure of the process; it is the final stage of it.

The apostles understood and continued this pattern. Paul publicly rebuked Peter in Galatians 2, not because Peter’s character was irredeemable, but because his conduct was public, influential, and doctrinally dangerous. Likewise, Paul instructs Timothy that elders who persist in sin are to be rebuked “in the presence of all” (1 Tim 5:20). Far from being slanderous, such rebuke is commanded precisely because unchecked leadership sin harms entire communities. Titus is told to “rebuke them sharply” so that they may become sound in the faith (Titus 1:13). In the New Testament, clarity is not cruelty; avoidance is.
Scripture also repeatedly condemns a false peace that refuses confrontation. Through Jeremiah, God rebukes leaders who cry “Peace, peace” when there is no peace, healing wounds lightly instead of truthfully (Jer 6:14). Ezekiel 34 portrays God’s anger toward shepherds who protect themselves while neglecting the weak, the straying, and the wounded. A church culture that avoids naming leadership failure in the name of unity is not merciful—it is disobedient. Love that never warns is not love at all.
Jesus’ words to the church in Laodicea reinforce this point. He rebukes an entire congregation publicly for lukewarmness and complacency, declaring, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline” (Rev 3:19). Love and rebuke are not opposites in Scripture; they are inseparable. Where there is genuine care for the church, there will be a willingness to confront what endangers it—even when that confrontation is misunderstood.
This brings us to an often-overlooked responsibility for those who accuse others of slander. Before asserting that preachers or leaders are speaking sinfully, a serious question must be asked: Have you first spoken directly to those leaders or at least read their public responses to being challenged? Matthew 18 applies not only to rebuking sin, but also to raising accusations. To declare to others that someone is “slandering” without first seeking clarification or understanding from the accused is itself a violation of biblical process. It risks becoming the very thing it condemns—reckless speech about others without firsthand engagement. If leaders have, in fact, followed the Matthew 18 pattern—confronting repeatedly, seeking repentance, and finding no remedy—then public clarity is not gossip or slander; it is accountability.
Ultimately, Scripture places a heavier weight on leaders who fail to confront sin than on those who speak too plainly about it. The New Testament church is not preserved by tone-policing faithful rebuke, but by courageously naming what harms the flock and calling leaders to repentance. Jesus Himself accepted misunderstanding, offense, and accusations of harshness in order to speak truthfully. His example leaves little room for a Christianity that equates discomfort with wrongdoing.
In the end, the question is not whether rebuke feels negative, but whether it is true, necessary, and aimed at restoration. Where leaders persist in sin, lukewarmness, or neglect—and refuse correction—public rebuke becomes not only permissible, but loving. Silence may feel kinder, but Scripture consistently shows it to be the greater danger.



Appendix: Politeness, Political Correctness, and Biblical Speech

Modern Western culture places a high moral value on politeness, emotional safety, and the avoidance of offense. Communication is often judged less by its truthfulness than by how it makes listeners feel. In this framework, discomfort is treated as harm, and clarity is frequently rebranded as aggression. Political correctness functions as a social safeguard, but it also trains people to interpret strong moral language as inherently unethical, regardless of context or accuracy.
Biblical communication operates on a fundamentally different axis. Scripture values truth, covenantal responsibility, and moral clarity over social comfort. The biblical panoply of speech includes encouragement, persuasion, lament, warning, rebuke, exposure, and judgment. Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles all adjusted their tone according to the spiritual condition of their audience. Gentle words were reserved for the humble and repentant; sharp words were directed toward the proud, the hypocritical, and those entrusted with leadership who refused correction.
In Scripture, offense is not the metric of wrongdoing—falsehood and unfaithfulness are. A culture shaped by the Bible does not ask first, “Was this polite?” but, “Was this true, necessary, and faithful to God?” When modern sensibilities are allowed to override biblical categories, the church risks confusing civility with righteousness and silence with love.



Appendix II: Order, Authority, and the Limits of Congregational Challenge

Scripture affirms both the responsibility of leaders to call the church to obedience and the responsibility of members to respond in faith, humility, and order. While the Bible never grants leaders immunity from accountability, it also does not encourage a culture of continual challenge over minor matters. Repeatedly contesting leadership decisions, tone, or secondary judgments is not presented as a congregational duty, but as a source of disorder.
Hebrews 13:17 instructs believers to “obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls.” This does not demand blind obedience, but it does assume trust, restraint, and goodwill. Paul warns against quarrelling over disputable matters (Rom 14:1) and urges that all things be done “decently and in order” (1 Cor 14:40). A church where every exhortation is interrogated breeds instability rather than holiness.
When concerns do arise, Scripture provides a framework: they are to be raised appropriately, respectfully, and proportionately. Serious issues—sin, false teaching, abuse of authority—require clear confrontation. Lesser matters—style, emphasis, or personal preference—are to be borne patiently. Leaders are accountable before God, and members are called to cultivate unity, not by suppressing conscience, but by exercising discernment, maturity, and trust in the order God has established within the church.