Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[Ernie]

The apostles issued directives such as
"If you don't work, don't eat."
"Don't adorn with braided hair or wear gold and pearls".
"Support widows who have washed the saints feet and other good works."
"Nephews should take care of widows."
"Parents should lay up for the children."

I can imagine that some who were not doing these things felt shamed by the apostles. I'm guessing that some felt these directives were unnecessary or unscriptural.

So a question...
Do church leaders today have the same authority to give such directives, about media and entertainment for example, or can they only repeat the directives that the apostles gave in the New Testament?

[Anthony]

The apostles issued directives such as
"If you don't work, don't eat."
"Don't adorn with braided hair or wear gold and pearls".
"Support widows who have washed the saints feet and other good works."
"Nephews should take care of widows."
"Parents should lay up for the children."

I can imagine that some who were not doing these things felt shamed by the apostles. I'm guessing that some felt these directives were unnecessary or unscriptural.

So a question...
Do church leaders today have the same authority to give such directives, about media and entertainment for example, or can they only repeat the directives that the apostles gave in the New Testament?

This might be my crazy outsider perspective, but i view church rules as spiritually totally distinct from things like what you quoted. You mostly quoted moral directives from the Apostles, church rules about media and entertainment are mostly justified because they stop liberal drift. I would not view my church’s restriction on video games on any level spirtiually equivalent to “Nephews take care of widows” or other apostolic moral directives. I would outwardly follow them both but the biblical directives are personally a bigger deal mentally and spiritually than whatever clothing standards my church enforces.

So no, my church leaders don't have the same authority to give new moral directives, they do have the authority to update church discipline rules like dress lengths, etc.

[Ernie]

The apostles issued directives such as
"If you don't work, don't eat."
"Don't adorn with braided hair or wear gold and pearls".
"Support widows who have washed the saints feet and other good works."
"Nephews should take care of widows."
"Parents should lay up for the children."

I can imagine that some who were not doing these things felt shamed by the apostles. I'm guessing that some felt these directives were unnecessary or unscriptural.

So a question...
Do church leaders today have the same authority to give such directives, about media and entertainment for example, or can they only repeat the directives that the apostles gave in the New Testament?

This might be my crazy outsider perspective, but i view church rules as spiritually totally distinct from things like what you quoted. You mostly quoted moral directives from the Apostles, church rules about media and entertainment are mostly justified because they stop liberal drift. I would not view my church’s restriction on video games on any level spiritually equivalent to “Nephews take care of widows” or other apostolic moral directives. I would outwardly follow them both but the biblical directives are personally a bigger deal mentally and spiritually than whatever clothing standards my church enforces.

So no, my church leaders don't have the same authority to give new moral directives, they do have the authority to update church discipline rules like dress lengths, etc.

That's interesting that you call them moral directives. I'll have to think about that a bit more.

The only difference that I have seen between the two is that the directives of the apostles are universally authoritative whereas those made by church or conference leaders are only authoritative for those who are under said leaders' authority.

[Anthony]

The apostles issued directives such as
"If you don't work, don't eat."
"Don't adorn with braided hair or wear gold and pearls".
"Support widows who have washed the saints feet and other good works."
"Nephews should take care of widows."
"Parents should lay up for the children."

I can imagine that some who were not doing these things felt shamed by the apostles. I'm guessing that some felt these directives were unnecessary or unscriptural.

So a question...
Do church leaders today have the same authority to give such directives, about media and entertainment for example, or can they only repeat the directives that the apostles gave in the New Testament?

This might be my crazy outsider perspective, but i view church rules as spiritually totally distinct from things like what you quoted. You mostly quoted moral directives from the Apostles, church rules about media and entertainment are mostly justified because they stop liberal drift. I would not view my church’s restriction on video games on any level spiritually equivalent to “Nephews take care of widows” or other apostolic moral directives. I would outwardly follow them both but the biblical directives are personally a bigger deal mentally and spiritually than whatever clothing standards my church enforces.

So no, my church leaders don't have the same authority to give new moral directives, they do have the authority to update church discipline rules like dress lengths, etc.

That's interesting that you call them moral directives. I'll have to think about that a bit more.

The only difference that I have seen between the two is that the directives of the apostles are universally authoritative whereas those made by church or conference leaders are only authoritative for those who are under said leaders' authority.

My problem with your second paragraph is that if the problem was only universaility, quirky conference rules would suddenly be elevated to on par with apostolic directives. Walking into church with neon orange suit coat would be on par with me ignoring a suffering widow in need. I believe there is a moral hierarchy regarding church rules and biblical ones. Even though i still support excommunication/rebuke for breaking church rules.

[MattY]

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?

If a group of you within a church wants to start practicing wearing specific uniforms or a dress code - like a special club - go right ahead. The problem becomes when you require it of the entire church, you require it of new believers, and you disfellowship people for not following it. It's never really as innocuous as "an agreement together on how to practice and apply the scriptures" because it inevitably results in REQUIRING it of the entire church - including those who weren't part of the initial agreement (people who were born and joined later) - and separation from those who disagree or change their minds. And the idea of a more holy group by having a separate lifestyle with strict external rules is as flawed now as it was when monasticism was invented - but again, if it's totally voluntary and consists of a group *within* a church that's free to join and free to leave with no consequences (I'm talking about leaving the special club, not leaving the church), whose members attend church and fellowship like normal with all members who don't wear the specific uniforms: I wouldn't say they're doing something wrong, they have commendable zeal, even if they've applied it in a little misguided fashion.

[MattY]

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.

That comment about the leaders confessing was a bit tongue-in-cheek. I agree a member shouldn't blatantly violate standards that they have previously promised to obey, in most cases. But often they were just not necessary standards in the first place.

[JayP]

Interesting variety of views on this. Rather than agree or disagree with this or that point let me offer the following thoughts.

Who is confession for? God, the individual, his Church,? Is it appropriate to use a situation where a confession is needed for the individual but ALSO use it to “send a message” to the congregation?

I just went to confession in my setting (yes, being a traditionalist I got to go in the little box and “Forgive Father for I have sinned, it has been ……since my last confession…”. I appreciate the privacy, the value of having to SAY out loud my sin. To ask for forgiveness and speak specifically to what I need to do differently.

Not suggesting this is superior or right for you.

I confess I cannot agree that violating Church standards are the equal of moral sins. Is it ok? Nope but clearly of a different place.

[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?

If a group of you within a church wants to start practicing wearing specific uniforms or a dress code - like a special club - go right ahead. The problem becomes when you require it of the entire church, you require it of new believers, and you disfellowship people for not following it. It's never really as innocuous as "an agreement together on how to practice and apply the scriptures" because it inevitably results in REQUIRING it of the entire church - including those who weren't part of the initial agreement (people who were born and joined later) - and separation from those who disagree or change their minds.

What you describe is very common in Plain Anabaptist churches. I don't know how common it is in other churches with a dress code.
I've written extensively about the problem you describe and a solution for it. Our church does not do what you describe. The inevitability only happens in churches that are predisposed to thinking that specific uniforms and communion go hand-in-hand.

As far as those who born and joined later, again, it is voluntary. They don't have to join. They can go to a church that does not require these things. So either a person helps make the rules initially, or a person agrees to keep the rules that were already made. Either way, it is a voluntary commitment to keep the rules.

And the idea of a more holy group by having a separate lifestyle with strict external rules is as flawed now as it was when monasticism was invented

This is not an either/or situation. It is possible to for a group to commit themselves to a separate lifestyle with external rules, not to make themselves more holy than others, but to accomplish certain spiritual goals for which they all are striving for.

- but again, if it's totally voluntary and consists of a group *within* a church that's free to join and free to leave with no consequences (I'm talking about leaving the special club, not leaving the church), whose members attend church and fellowship like normal with all members who don't wear the specific uniforms: I wouldn't say they're doing something wrong, they have commendable zeal, even if they've applied it in a little misguided fashion.

Why do you think this is misguided?

[Ernie]

But often they were just not necessary standards in the first place.

According to your view...

Who gets to be the authority to decide whether they are necessary?

[Ernie]

My problem with your second paragraph is that if the problem was only universaility, quirky conference rules would suddenly be elevated to on par with apostolic directives. Walking into church with neon orange suit coat would be on par with me ignoring a suffering widow in need. I believe there is a moral hierarchy regarding church rules and biblical ones. Even though i still support excommunication/rebuke for breaking church rules.

Some people equate the teachings of the Apostles regarding attire and rituals as having about as much value as wearing a neon orange suit coat. Those of us who see the teachings of the Apostles as universally authoritative don't view it this way.
Interestingly, many Christians are keen on helping widows but aren't interested in the other teachings of the apostles on attire, rituals, church structure, etc.
Other Christians get all obsessed with attire, rituals, and church structure but they neglect widows.

Jesus does say that some things are much weightier than others and that we should not neglect the little things but for sure focus on the weightier things.