Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[MattY]

Perhaps the leaders should also have been made to confess for sinfully setting up human rules about disputable and inconsequential matters in the first place.

So it was the leaders who made this rule, not the congregation?

Do you have any problem with congregations or churches making human ruled about disputable and matters deemed inconsequential by some in the church?

In Hebrews we are told to obey them that have the rule over us. How do you interpret that verse? Some people say, "Leaders should not ask anyone to do something that is not taught in the Bible." If that is the case, the Hebrew writer could have said, "Obey the teachings of the Bible."

Fair point, I don't know who made the rule. Surely the entire congregation at the time would have agreed to follow it, even if they weren't the ones who made it, but that was decades before my lifetime.

It depends on how specific the matter is or how general the solution is, versus ruling out perfectly good solutions by dictating a uniform style. For example, if one wants to set a general expectation of what modest dress looks like, compared to today's society where anything goes, one might ask men to wear long pants and keep a shirt on their back, and for women to avoid shorts above the knees, crop tops that reveal any of the midriff, and tight pants. That seems like a reasonable expectation to set when society has a modesty problem. On the other hand, dictating that only button-down shirts are to be worn, or only solid-colors are okay - no stripes or prints, or that perfectly modest dresses are off limits because they don't have a cape, seems quite out of step with Romans 14 and Colossians 2.

The Greek words in that Hebrews passage, as I understand it, do not instruct blind obedience to everything your leaders tell you. Rather, they are saying to be persuaded by, listen to with a willing heart, respond trustfully to your leaders, and to yield, give way, be teachable and responsive to them. It calls for leadership by example, not control and domination. Furthermore, the entire Bible was not yet written, and certainly not compiled into a single book, and most members would not yet have owned one. Most leaders would have had a better grasp on the teachings and interpretation of the Bible than most lay members, and even today, that should hopefully be expected of the leaders. So some of the "obedience to them that have the rule over us" surely involves listening with a willing heart to their teaching and being instructable. Also, surely it doesn't take much imagination to think of other scenarios that might call for submission to church leadership beyond disputable things like dress standards. Such things might be specific to that time and place - for example, please join in our prayer vigil for this brother on such a time and date; or please help this brother over here with this matter that he needs a hand with; or please do not interrupt the service with questions and arguments about this or that, we can discuss that privately later.

[Ernie]

It depends on how specific the matter is or how general the solution is, versus ruling out perfectly good solutions by dictating a uniform style. For example, if one wants to set a general expectation of what modest dress looks like, compared to today's society where anything goes, one might ask men to wear long pants and keep a shirt on their back, and for women to avoid shorts above the knees, crop tops that reveal any of the midriff, and tight pants. That seems like a reasonable expectation to set when society has a modesty problem. On the other hand, dictating that only button-down shirts are to be worn, or only solid-colors are okay - no stripes or prints, or that perfectly modest dresses are off limits because they don't have a cape, seems quite out of step with Romans 14 and Colossians 2.

So you do not believe that Christians should ever agree together on how they want to practice and apply the scriptures if it includes specific uniforms?

[Ernie]

The Greek words in that Hebrews passage, as I understand it, do not instruct blind obedience to everything your leaders tell you. Rather, they are saying to be persuaded by, listen to with a willing heart, respond trustfully to your leaders, and to yield, give way, be teachable and responsive to them. It calls for leadership by example, not control and domination. Furthermore, the entire Bible was not yet written, and certainly not compiled into a single book, and most members would not yet have owned one. Most leaders would have had a better grasp on the teachings and interpretation of the Bible than most lay members, and even today, that should hopefully be expected of the leaders. So some of the "obedience to them that have the rule over us" surely involves listening with a willing heart to their teaching and being instructable. Also, surely it doesn't take much imagination to think of other scenarios that might call for submission to church leadership beyond disputable things like dress standards. Such things might be specific to that time and place - for example, please join in our prayer vigil for this brother on such a time and date; or please help this brother over here with this matter that he needs a hand with; or please do not interrupt the service with questions and arguments about this or that, we can discuss that privately later.

So leaders can give directives as long as they make sense to everyone in the congregation. But if some in the congregation don't see their directives as helpful, then not?

[JohnH]

It depends on how specific the matter is or how general the solution is, versus ruling out perfectly good solutions by dictating a uniform style. For example, if one wants to set a general expectation of what modest dress looks like, compared to today's society where anything goes, one might ask men to wear long pants and keep a shirt on their back, and for women to avoid shorts above the knees, crop tops that reveal any of the midriff, and tight pants. That seems like a reasonable expectation to set when society has a modesty problem. On the other hand, dictating that only button-down shirts are to be worn, or only solid-colors are okay - no stripes or prints, or that perfectly modest dresses are off limits because they don't have a cape, seems quite out of step with Romans 14 and Colossians 2.

So you do not believe that Christians should ever agree together on how they want to practice and apply the scriptures if it includes specific uniforms?

My feeling is that a lot of folks (particularly from Beachy or Beachy-like backgrounds) dislike church standards like this in general since most of their experience is with church standards involving dress issues, as opposed to the many, many other things that are important to Christian life.

The other thing that I think causes dislike is that generally there is a stated set of expectations and then a different set of actual expectations. In effect, everyone learns to be a liar that does not live up to the commitment they said they would do. You say you will agree not to wear athletic pants and T-shirts, for example, but "everyone knows" it's fine to wear that at home, and also to gatherings for softball in the middle of the week. But attempts to actually change a stated standard to reflect this drive into opposition from conservatives who are worried if they allow that, then the new "everyone knows" standard will be something else.

I don't have an answer for how to fix a generally broken system like that.

[mike]

The other thing that I think causes dislike is that generally there is a stated set of expectations and then a different set of actual expectations. In effect, everyone learns to be a liar that does not live up to the commitment they said they would do. You say you will agree not to wear athletic pants and T-shirts, for example, but "everyone knows" it's fine to wear that at home, and also to gatherings for softball in the middle of the week. But attempts to actually change a stated standard to reflect this drive into opposition from conservatives who are worried if they allow that, then the new "everyone knows" standard will be something else.

I don't have an answer for how to fix a generally broken system like that.

It's not just Beachys, our church has numerous things like that as well.

[JohnH]

The other thing that I think causes dislike is that generally there is a stated set of expectations and then a different set of actual expectations. In effect, everyone learns to be a liar that does not live up to the commitment they said they would do. You say you will agree not to wear athletic pants and T-shirts, for example, but "everyone knows" it's fine to wear that at home, and also to gatherings for softball in the middle of the week. But attempts to actually change a stated standard to reflect this drive into opposition from conservatives who are worried if they allow that, then the new "everyone knows" standard will be something else.

I don't have an answer for how to fix a generally broken system like that.

It's not just Beachys, our church has numerous things like that as well.

It seems to be a problem in moderate and intermediate conservative circles.

Fundamental conservatives seem to have far less of a problem. Of course, they also don’t try to restrict very much.

[Ernie]

The other thing that I think causes dislike is that generally there is a stated set of expectations and then a different set of actual expectations. In effect, everyone learns to be a liar that does not live up to the commitment they said they would do. You say you will agree not to wear athletic pants and T-shirts, for example, but "everyone knows" it's fine to wear that at home, and also to gatherings for softball in the middle of the week. But attempts to actually change a stated standard to reflect this drive into opposition from conservatives who are worried if they allow that, then the new "everyone knows" standard will be something else.

I don't have an answer for how to fix a generally broken system like that.

It's not just Beachys, our church has numerous things like that as well.

I don't either. I was once in a church that had some of the best teaching. The lead pastor thought that if you did good teaching and good role modeling, with enough scriptural and spiritual evidence, people would want to live principled lives. But listeners didn't respond the way they were supposed to.
He was one of many who tried this experiment. He is one of few who had the courage to call his experiment a failure.

Another pastor friend is dealing with this same thing right now. The majority of the congregation want to wear veils instead of the traditional coverings. One segment of the church wants to use this change to regain lost ground when it comes to how much of the head is covered. But another segment likes the smaller coverings they are now wearing, and they don't want to take any steps towards being more covered than what they are presently.

I don't know either how to coax people into living more principled lives, if they really don't want to. Perhaps an experiment with intense fasting, weeping on behalf of the people, loving the people unconditionally, etc. could be attempted. But that is a lot of work.

[JohnH]

A thought is that perhaps the spiritual problems that some (not all) of the membership have should have been dealt with a lot earlier. And there should be signs of spiritual problems besides just clothing & coverings.

In Holdeman circles, a "revival" happened in the 1970s where in some congregations every single person was put on repentance, or at least asked to see something in their life that needed to change. This was difficult for people to go through, but does seem to have led to good spiritual fruit. Since then, most members don't really want to have to go through something like that again and prefer to stay on top of their business, so to speak, on a more regular basis.

I am aware of a very similar thing that happened in the Tampico Amish circles in the 1920s.

[MattY]

The Greek words in that Hebrews passage, as I understand it, do not instruct blind obedience to everything your leaders tell you. Rather, they are saying to be persuaded by, listen to with a willing heart, respond trustfully to your leaders, and to yield, give way, be teachable and responsive to them. It calls for leadership by example, not control and domination. Furthermore, the entire Bible was not yet written, and certainly not compiled into a single book, and most members would not yet have owned one. Most leaders would have had a better grasp on the teachings and interpretation of the Bible than most lay members, and even today, that should hopefully be expected of the leaders. So some of the "obedience to them that have the rule over us" surely involves listening with a willing heart to their teaching and being instructable. Also, surely it doesn't take much imagination to think of other scenarios that might call for submission to church leadership beyond disputable things like dress standards. Such things might be specific to that time and place - for example, please join in our prayer vigil for this brother on such a time and date; or please help this brother over here with this matter that he needs a hand with; or please do not interrupt the service with questions and arguments about this or that, we can discuss that privately later.

So leaders can give directives as long as they make sense to everyone in the congregation. But if some in the congregation don't see their directives as helpful, then not?

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that's what the first few sentences sounds like to you? (leadership by example and persuasion, not by control and blind obedience). I was trying to describe the attitude the laity should have toward the leaders. I think the New Testament describes leadership by example and persuasion, not by control, domination, or hierarchy. Expelling people (excommunication) happens when they are unrepentant sinners or false teachers; otherwise, you persuade them by teaching and example.

[Ernie]

The Greek words in that Hebrews passage, as I understand it, do not instruct blind obedience to everything your leaders tell you. Rather, they are saying to be persuaded by, listen to with a willing heart, respond trustfully to your leaders, and to yield, give way, be teachable and responsive to them. It calls for leadership by example, not control and domination. Furthermore, the entire Bible was not yet written, and certainly not compiled into a single book, and most members would not yet have owned one. Most leaders would have had a better grasp on the teachings and interpretation of the Bible than most lay members, and even today, that should hopefully be expected of the leaders. So some of the "obedience to them that have the rule over us" surely involves listening with a willing heart to their teaching and being instructable. Also, surely it doesn't take much imagination to think of other scenarios that might call for submission to church leadership beyond disputable things like dress standards. Such things might be specific to that time and place - for example, please join in our prayer vigil for this brother on such a time and date; or please help this brother over here with this matter that he needs a hand with; or please do not interrupt the service with questions and arguments about this or that, we can discuss that privately later.

So leaders can give directives as long as they make sense to everyone in the congregation. But if some in the congregation don't see their directives as helpful, then not?

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that's what the first few sentences sounds like to you? (leadership by example and persuasion, not by control and blind obedience). I was trying to describe the attitude the laity should have toward the leaders. I think the New Testament describes leadership by example and persuasion, not by control, domination, or hierarchy. Expelling people (excommunication) happens when they are unrepentant sinners or false teachers; otherwise, you persuade them by teaching and example.

I was referring to this as well as your comments above about leaders.

But this is an illustration of what Paul says, the law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. And if there is no unnecessary (and unscriptural) rule about parting of the hair, then there would be no sinful violation of the law either. Perhaps the leaders should also have been made to confess for sinfully setting up human rules about disputable and inconsequential matters in the first place.

If leaders made the ruling, then it should be followed because the Hebrew writer says it should be obeyed (unless of course it goes against the higher law of God.) I understand you to be suggesting that if a leader makes a rule that is unnecessary according to your opinion and a make a rule that is not found in scripture, then they are committing a sin. I don't understand that from Hebrews.

If the congregation made the ruling and the members agreed to submit to the rules made by the church, then they are the ones who need to confess, not the leaders.