Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[mike]

According to what one of our bishops (Hope Mennonite Conference) said in a sermon recently, Lancaster Mennonite Conference historically used to have a certain way of dealing with violations of the church's discipline. At council meeting, presumably, those who had violated would sit in the front of the room, and then individually stand up at the appropriate time and confess where they had failed to follow the discipline.

Also according to him, the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Conference also has a way of dealing with violations, but not to make people stand before the meeting themselves and confess; the ministry or maybe the bishop instead reads out the violation and confession and asks the person to stand in acknowledgement.

I would enjoy knowing whether these are accurate statements. And I'm curious whether other groups have any similar ways of dealing with those who fail to toe the line.

In our conference, in which I don't really have a long history, I'm not sure whether something like this takes place at some point. I've heard of a few instances where someone got a tap on the shoulder and was told that they would appreciate a change in some area or other. I've also learned it is somewhat typical of a certain type of council meeting that we have maybe once every year or two that someone will raise an anonymous concern about an issue, and the bishop will then read out their concerns. These may or may not actually be related to rules of discipline; for example someone may just worry about the direction of the church.

I assume that if someone in our church persisted in violating the church's rules, they might get a few meetings with the ministry but would most likely be already on the way out of the church. Once such a person has left, I think our ministry would simply give a general public statement about their having left, and that would be the end of it. The only way I could see a more public detailed confession of some sort taking place would be if someone did in fact violate the rules in a lot of ways or in a big way but wanted to apologize, change their ways, and stay on as a member. But I expect that happens rarely if ever.

[barnhart]

I have seen it done twice. As someone on the leadership team, I'm not inclined to ever require this. Allow it, of course, mandate it... I question the value.

[Soloist]

According to what one of our bishops (Hope Mennonite Conference) said in a sermon recently, Lancaster Mennonite Conference historically used to have a certain way of dealing with violations of the church's discipline. At council meeting, presumably, those who had violated would sit in the front of the room, and then individually stand up at the appropriate time and confess where they had failed to follow the discipline.

Also according to him, the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Conference also has a way of dealing with violations, but not to make people stand before the meeting themselves and confess; the ministry or maybe the bishop instead reads out the violation and confession and asks the person to stand in acknowledgement.

I would enjoy knowing whether these are accurate statements. And I'm curious whether other groups have any similar ways of dealing with those who fail to toe the line.

In our conference, in which I don't really have a long history, I'm not sure whether something like this takes place at some point. I've heard of a few instances where someone got a tap on the shoulder and was told that they would appreciate a change in some area or other. I've also learned it is somewhat typical of a certain type of council meeting that we have maybe once every year or two that someone will raise an anonymous concern about an issue, and the bishop will then read out their concerns. These may or may not actually be related to rules of discipline; for example someone may just worry about the direction of the church.

I assume that if someone in our church persisted in violating the church's rules, they might get a few meetings with the ministry but would most likely be already on the way out of the church. Once such a person has left, I think our ministry would simply give a general public statement about their having left, and that would be the end of it. The only way I could see a more public detailed confession of some sort taking place would be if someone did in fact violate the rules in a lot of ways or in a big way but wanted to apologize, change their ways, and stay on as a member. But I expect that happens rarely if ever.

Wife: I don’t know about Eastern, but I think that’s how Pilgrim does it, more or less. It depends on what it’s for; i’ve mostly just seen that for big deal stuff. otherwise, it might come up in council meeting during testimony time

[Ernie]

According to what one of our bishops (Hope Mennonite Conference) said in a sermon recently, Lancaster Mennonite Conference historically used to have a certain way of dealing with violations of the church's discipline. At council meeting, presumably, those who had violated would sit in the front of the room, and then individually stand up at the appropriate time and confess where they had failed to follow the discipline.

Also according to him, the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Conference also has a way of dealing with violations, but not to make people stand before the meeting themselves and confess; the ministry or maybe the bishop instead reads out the violation and confession and asks the person to stand in acknowledgement.

I would enjoy knowing whether these are accurate statements. And I'm curious whether other groups have any similar ways of dealing with those who fail to toe the line.

Weaverland Conference does something similar to one of these two.

Washington/Franklin does the same as Eastern. It sometimes depends on the infraction and how much willfulness was involved I think.

[eccentric_rambler]

Washington/Franklin does the same as Eastern. It sometimes depends on the infraction and how much willfulness was involved I think.

And, if you are of a cynical bent, perhaps who committed the infraction.

[JayP]

I would confirm that Eastern does both scenarios. MOST infractions are handled privately with the ministry or in a low key way. It does happen, but is rare to have them stand before the entire congregation.

[ken_sylvania]

Also according to him, the Eastern Pennsylvania Mennonite Conference also has a way of dealing with violations, but not to make people stand before the meeting themselves and confess; the ministry or maybe the bishop instead reads out the violation and confession and asks the person to stand in acknowledgement.

I think reality is a bit more nuanced.

A man who has committed a grave sin might make public confession. Something less serious might be dealt with as you described above. More minor violations (for instance, a group of boys pranking a newly married couple by decorating their car with shaving cream, or a publicly known instance of foolish driving resulting in damages) might merit a statement describing the offense and stating those involved have indicated they are sorry, but without public mention of the offenders names. Something very minor (vehicle color or style violation, dress code violations) would in most cases be handled privately between one of the ministry and the involved member and nothing would be said publicly.

[the-real-steve]

I was in attendance at two Mennonite confessions in my day: one at a Hope congregation and another at KMF church. Both were on communion days. I witnessed one in the Dunkard Brethren church and that was at our spring council meeting (which is more a business meeting than anything).

Never really knew why such things must wait until such time.

[JayP]

Thought some of you might find this interesting.
Four years ago the Catholic Bishop of Delaware instituted a practice called Reconciliation Monday for Holy Week.
Nothing special about the RCC act of confession but he mandated that all churches would be open for a six hour period, late afternoon through evening and Priests available for confession. If you are unaware, many Catholic Churches have reduced times for confession to a few windows.

Well, many of the Priests even brought along books thinking they would have some dull waiting periods.
In fact the churches were packed and the many mentioned they could barely slip in bathroom breaks, forget reading time

Doctrinal differences aside, it demonstrates their is both a great need out there and many who want to confront their sinful state.
We can get worn out by our perception of how Godless society seems yet He continues to stir peoples hearts and consciences.
Again, our form of confession is not for many of you, but any person’s willingness to confess before God is a welcome development.

I give that Bishop a lot of credit. Many were skeptical. Sometimes we just have to step forward in fAith

[joshuabgood]

My dad, back in the old days, before Easterns were more "ok" with special music, recorded a "record" with 3 other men, of acapella quartet style. While there weren't any formal standards against it, nonetheless he fell on the "wrong side" of the "Eastern law" as it were. He was confronted and asked to make a confession. He refused, based on that it wasn't written anywhere in the standards, so he didn't break a rule, and he had no moral conviction that it was a sin that needed confession either. As the conflict grew, a bishop he liked, Isaac somebody I think, met with him and tried to "resolve" the conflict by stating to him that "I think maybe I could write a confession for you that would satisfy the other ministers (hardliners) and you would be ok with as it isn't really a confession." My dad let him know that he appreciated the offer, but, he had decided to move out of state to another location. This seemed to mostly peacefully resolve the situation and on occasion when visiting PA, we still attended Denver Mennonite Church and they would still greet him with the holy kiss, though he told me once, barely.

So, at least in the older days, public confessions, even for things that weren't in the standards explicitly, were in fact a "thing" that folks may have to deal with.