Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[JayP]

I am guessing that would have been Isaac Sensenig. One of the founding five.

[joshuabgood]

I am guessing that would have been Isaac Sensenig. One of the founding five.

Thanks for filling in that blank for me.

[Grace]

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.

In other words, Isaac Sensenig was going to write a "confession" for you Dad to give, that wasn't really a "confession". To me that sounds deceptive and underhanded.

[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.

In other words, Isaac Sensenig was going to write a "confession" for you Dad to make, that wasn't really a "confession". To me that sounds deceptive and underhanded.

That would be the strongest way of saying it. I think a more charitable interpretation might be something like...he was going to try and help craft a statement that wasn't a confession per se, but probably expressed some remorse for any unintended offenses that "may have been caused." Or some commitment in the future to check with the preachers first or some such...

And in this way be a peacemaker. Allowing everyone to save face.

Something like that...but admittedly, still pretty political feeling...

[Signtist]

In other words, Isaac Sensenig was going to write a "confession" for you Dad to give, that wasn't really a "confession". To me that sounds deceptive and underhanded.

I can't imagine those words being used in conjunction with that name.

[Signtist]

The church I grew up in was basically a Canadian version of Eastern. We were well acquainted with predominant Eastern leaders, as they frequently came to our area.

Public confessions of misdemeanors were not unusual. I once was caught for violating the church's position on watching movies. I was asked if I'd be willing to make a public confession. I readily agreed, I violated, and I would say so publicly. They wondered when I would like to do this? I said, "On the same Sunday morning that [insert bishops sons name] confesses to the DVD player in his closet." (Sorry, bro!)

Maybe not my finest moment, but the issue was immediately dropped. In my mind this confirmed the presence of a double standard that was so long denied.

[JohnH]

The church I grew up in was basically a Canadian version of Eastern. We were well acquainted with predominant Eastern leaders, as they frequently came to our area.

Public confessions of misdemeanors were not unusual. I once was caught for violating the church's position on watching movies. I was asked if I'd be willing to make a public confession. I readily agreed, I violated, and I would say so publicly. They wondered when I would like to do this? I said, "On the same Sunday morning that [insert bishops sons name] confesses to the DVD player in his closet." (Sorry, bro!)

Maybe not my finest moment, but the issue was immediately dropped. In my mind this confirmed the presence of a double standard that was so long denied.

I really do not understand how people who are ordained leaders can think they have any relationship with God at all when they act like that.

[mike]

Our bishop brought up this topic in a sort of nostalgic sense, presenting our lack of dealing with infractions in this way as something of value that our conference has sadly lost.

My question for my fellow conservative Anabaptists is whether you think our churches have in fact lost something valuable in the way we deal with violations of our brotherhood agreements. I don't have a strong opinion on this, and I don't really have good knowledge since I haven't been in these sorts of churches until the last several years, but I'm curious what you all think.

[Soloist]

Our bishop brought up this topic in a sort of nostalgic sense, presenting our lack of dealing with infractions in this way as something of value that our conference has sadly lost.

My question for my fellow conservative Anabaptists is whether you think our churches have in fact lost something valuable in the way we deal with violations of our brotherhood agreements. I don't have a strong opinion on this, and I don't really have good knowledge since I haven't been in these sorts of churches until the last several years, but I'm curious what you all think.

As a seeker, it really deeply bothers me that people agree to uphold standards and then don’t and then when it gets addressed if it gets addressed, it’s secret and quiet.
This results in people, not knowing if anything is actually ever addressed and feeling like it doesn’t actually matter at all anyway.
Like why are we going to create these standards if we’re not actually going to follow them?
What’s the point?
And have the more shameful difficult things we make public knowledge and then un-member them for a few months before accepting them back? In my mind, the little things could be addressed and possibly make it easier to not fall into the bigger things.

Ultimately, though, if you have a wrote set of standards and you agreed to follow them… that is sin if you don’t.

[R7ehr]

Our bishop brought up this topic in a sort of nostalgic sense, presenting our lack of dealing with infractions in this way as something of value that our conference has sadly lost.

My question for my fellow conservative Anabaptists is whether you think our churches have in fact lost something valuable in the way we deal with violations of our brotherhood agreements. I don't have a strong opinion on this, and I don't really have good knowledge since I haven't been in these sorts of churches until the last several years, but I'm curious what you all think.

I think public confession for infractions of the rules is good.

As an aside, I suspect that there is a strong correlation of churches that practice this, and a longer term conservation of their rules. And of churches that don’t do this, and a quicker changing of their rules.

I believe the act of public confession is healthy and necessary. I think groups can vary a bit on what should be public and what is not.

As far as “forced” confessions go, I think “forced” can look and feel a lot differently to different people.