"Adult" subjects preached over the pulpit?

[MaxPC]

I admire the pastor who said that he won't even mention the website names because that activates curiosity and he does not want people to go there.

A few years ago a family we knew had a son get himself in some trouble. It was about all anyone talked about for a while and there was a strong social media & web coverage of the issue, obviously everyone weighing in on it.

The family's home church, over the pulpit, admonished people not to believe what they read on the web regarding it. What's the first thing most did when they got home? Looked it up

Precisely: human nature.

[Ken]

That what I would've done.

That's a well known psychological phenomenon. "Don't think of an Elephant" is a famous psychological experiment which always has the opposite effect. Also related is the "Streisand Effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The term alludes to Barbra Streisand, who in 2003 had sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs. Adelman photographed the beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project, which was intended to influence government policymakers. Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, "Image 3850" had been downloaded from Adelman's website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand's attorneys. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased greatly; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month. The lawsuit was dismissed and Streisand was ordered to pay Adelman's legal fees, which amounted to $155,567.

Oops...

Sooo... was she sunbathing or something when the photo was taken? Not sure I follow what the big deal was...

She just didn't want her "privacy" violated by having a public photograph of her house on some web site. Apparently the coastal commission photographed all of the homes in that exclusive part of the coast by using a boat from the sea. The actual point was to document coastal erosion. You probably can't see the multi-million dollar homes from the street so ordinary paparazzi aren't going to get the same shot . But as she learned, lawsuits and throwing a fit just draws attention to yourself.

[Ken]

I admire the pastor who said that he won't even mention the website names because that activates curiosity and he does not want people to go there.

A few years ago a family we knew had a son get himself in some trouble. It was about all anyone talked about for a while and there was a strong social media & web coverage of the issue, obviously everyone weighing in on it.

The family's home church, over the pulpit, admonished people not to believe what they read on the web regarding it. What's the first thing most did when they got home? Looked it up

Several years back a Conservative Mennonite Bishop's son committed a horrible crime against a little girl here in Lancaster County. The church people were told on uncertain terms, they are not to read the newspapers articles on the matter, not to look at articles on the web, social media, and most importantly not to talk about the crime. Later one of the head bishop's threatened that if he heard that anyone talked about the crime committed against the little girl, those people would be forced to make a public confession. Needless to say from what I understand, the threats didn't work.

Confess to what? As far as I know, sharing concern about the welfare of your fellow church members is an obligation not a sin.

[Josh]

A few years ago a family we knew had a son get himself in some trouble. It was about all anyone talked about for a while and there was a strong social media & web coverage of the issue, obviously everyone weighing in on it.

The family's home church, over the pulpit, admonished people not to believe what they read on the web regarding it. What's the first thing most did when they got home? Looked it up

Several years back a Conservative Mennonite Bishop's son committed a horrible crime against a little girl here in Lancaster County. The church people were told on uncertain terms, they are not to read the newspapers articles on the matter, not to look at articles on the web, social media, and most importantly not to talk about the crime. Later one of the head bishop's threatened that if he heard that anyone talked about the crime committed against the little girl, those people would be forced to make a public confession. Needless to say from what I understand, the threats didn't work.

Confess to what? As far as I know, sharing concern about the welfare of your fellow church members is an obligation not a sin.

According to certain “conservative” church leaders, it is. They’ll say it means you haven’t “forgiven” them and try to get you to “reconcile”.

Once, a church member was living in, amongst other things, adultery. I discussed this with him privately and he had no interest in changing, but rather blamed his wife for not being intimate with him. I approached him with a brother. Still no luck. We also met with that brother’s wife and his wife, pleading for repentance. He only wanted to discuss his many offences towards his wife.

This man legitimately thought I had an offence against him. (I didn’t, just concern for his soul.) Then I got to experience church leaders who really thought I needed to forgive him for something.

Nope. The forgiveness happened a long time ago.

This is a chronic cancer in conservative Anabaptist circles. And, I’m sorry to say, the same thinking is often present in liberal Anabaptist circles. They don’t have a way to cope with the idea a member may be unrepentant and lying about his misbehaviour.

[steve-in-kville]

I have long thought that its possible to forgive, yet still hold that person accountable.

[Josh]

I have long thought that its possible to forgive, yet still hold that person accountable.

That is precisely the problem I am talking about.

[Ken]

Several years back a Conservative Mennonite Bishop's son committed a horrible crime against a little girl here in Lancaster County. The church people were told on uncertain terms, they are not to read the newspapers articles on the matter, not to look at articles on the web, social media, and most importantly not to talk about the crime. Later one of the head bishop's threatened that if he heard that anyone talked about the crime committed against the little girl, those people would be forced to make a public confession. Needless to say from what I understand, the threats didn't work.

Confess to what? As far as I know, sharing concern about the welfare of your fellow church members is an obligation not a sin.

According to certain “conservative” church leaders, it is. They’ll say it means you haven’t “forgiven” them and try to get you to “reconcile”.

Once, a church member was living in, amongst other things, adultery. I discussed this with him privately and he had no interest in changing, but rather blamed his wife for not being intimate with him. I approached him with a brother. Still no luck. We also met with that brother’s wife and his wife, pleading for repentance. He only wanted to discuss his many offences towards his wife.

This man legitimately thought I had an offence against him. (I didn’t, just concern for his soul.) Then I got to experience church leaders who really thought I needed to forgive him for something.

Nope. The forgiveness happened a long time ago.

This is a chronic cancer in conservative Anabaptist circles. And, I’m sorry to say, the same thinking is often present in liberal Anabaptist circles. They don’t have a way to cope with the idea a member may be unrepentant and lying about his misbehaviour.

From my point of view, it isn't my place to "forgive" someone who did me no wrong or injury. I'm not God. I don't have the ability or power to go around the world forgiving everyone for everything.

It is, however, my place to be concerned about people with whom I have a close relationship such as family, fellow church members, and perhaps co-workers, neighbors, etc. That is part of what it means to be a community.

If churches are unable to "cope" with egregious behavior then that is what the civil authorities are for.

[Grace]

A few years ago a family we knew had a son get himself in some trouble. It was about all anyone talked about for a while and there was a strong social media & web coverage of the issue, obviously everyone weighing in on it.

The family's home church, over the pulpit, admonished people not to believe what they read on the web regarding it. What's the first thing most did when they got home? Looked it up

Several years back a Conservative Mennonite Bishop's son committed a horrible crime against a little girl here in Lancaster County. The church people were told on uncertain terms, they are not to read the newspapers articles on the matter, not to look at articles on the web, social media, and most importantly not to talk about the crime. Later one of the head bishop's threatened that if he heard that anyone talked about the crime committed against the little girl, those people would be forced to make a public confession. Needless to say from what I understand, the threats didn't work.

Confess to what? As far as I know, sharing concern about the welfare of your fellow church members is an obligation not a sin.

This heinous crime against a little girl garnered a lot of press, locally. And I think much of the talk was discussion on the facts presented in the newspapers. But even that wasn't a sin, as much of what was being discussed, was based on truth. I have to wonder if threatening people who talked about the situation, was to scare people into silence. And also that may have been to protect the the family of the young man, as they were so devastated at the actions of their brother, their uncle, etc. I wasn't real close to the situation, but the story sure garnered a lot of talk here in Lancaster County at the time.

[steve-in-kville]

This heinous crime against a little girl garnered a lot of press, locally. And I think much of the talk was discussion on the facts presented in the newspapers. But even that wasn't a sin, as much of what was being discussed, was based on truth. I have to wonder if threatening people who talked about the situation, was just a tactic to scare people into silence. I wasn't real close to the situation, but the story sure garnered a lot of talk here in Lancaster County at the time.

If you don't mind, how long ago was this?

[ken_sylvania]

That what I would've done.

That's a well known psychological phenomenon. "Don't think of an Elephant" is a famous psychological experiment which always has the opposite effect. Also related is the "Streisand Effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

The term alludes to Barbra Streisand, who in 2003 had sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs. Adelman photographed the beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project, which was intended to influence government policymakers. Before Streisand filed her lawsuit, "Image 3850" had been downloaded from Adelman's website only six times; two of those downloads were by Streisand's attorneys. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased greatly; more than 420,000 people visited the site over the following month. The lawsuit was dismissed and Streisand was ordered to pay Adelman's legal fees, which amounted to $155,567.

Oops...

Sooo... was she sunbathing or something when the photo was taken? Not sure I follow what the big deal was...

Does it say something about you that your mind immediately went there?
I mean, you have hinted a number of times recently that if a preacher preaches about a certain thing regularly it might reveal something about his routine thoughts....