mike wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 2:49 pm
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.
I feel similarly. I am sometimes torn between griping about the inconsistency that we see sometimes, and the carelessness about following or enforcing the rules that we thought we had to abide by and changed our lifestyle for, and being thankful that our church is a little flexible on things. I've been told that one of the express goals of our leadership has been to be gracious in relation to enforcing our discipline, and they seem to be that. My fear has been that if they for some reason don't like a person, they will then begin to pick on that person while leaving others alone. I can't really say, offhand, this I've seen that happen.
Our conference started from a congregation and a few ministers that left Eastern in the early 80s, and I assume this ideal of being a little more gracious on the church discipline might have been in reaction to what they saw as a problem in Eastern. Not sure. And it does puzzle me a little why one of our ministers is now, 40 years later, wishing we had kept a little more of the way Eastern does things (or used to do things).
mike wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 2:49 pm
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.
Isn't this just a moderate vs intermediate vs ultra vs OO difference? And always has been?
mike wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 2:49 pm
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.
I feel similarly. I am sometimes torn between griping about the inconsistency that we see sometimes, and the carelessness about following or enforcing the rules that we thought we had to abide by and changed our lifestyle for, and being thankful that our church is a little flexible on things. I've been told that one of the express goals of our leadership has been to be gracious in relation to enforcing our discipline, and they seem to be that. My fear has been that if they for some reason don't like a person, they will then begin to pick on that person while leaving others alone. I can't really say, offhand, this I've seen that happen.
Our conference started from a congregation and a few ministers that left Eastern in the early 80s, and I assume this ideal of being a little more gracious on the church discipline might have been in reaction to what they saw as a problem in Eastern. Not sure. And it does puzzle me a little why one of our ministers is now, 40 years later, wishing we had kept a little more of the way Eastern does things (or used to do things).
I imagine he was still relatively conservative but had problems with a strict Eastern structure in the 80s. Then 40 years of slow drift happens and he looks around later in life and says “wait i didnt want there to be NO discipline enforcement”. I on some level sympathize.
mike wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 3:12 pm
I feel similarly. I am sometimes torn between griping about the inconsistency that we see sometimes, and the carelessness about following or enforcing the rules that we thought we had to abide by and changed our lifestyle for, and being thankful that our church is a little flexible on things. I've been told that one of the express goals of our leadership has been to be gracious in relation to enforcing our discipline, and they seem to be that. My fear has been that if they for some reason don't like a person, they will then begin to pick on that person while leaving others alone. I can't really say, offhand, this I've seen that happen.
Our conference started from a congregation and a few ministers that left Eastern in the early 80s, and I assume this ideal of being a little more gracious on the church discipline might have been in reaction to what they saw as a problem in Eastern. Not sure. And it does puzzle me a little why one of our ministers is now, 40 years later, wishing we had kept a little more of the way Eastern does things (or used to do things).
It’s not that I want a heartless no bend discipline but what is the point if we never address it so people know it’s actually being addressed?
We’ve been told before a certain people get picked on more because of family name. I feel like it’s probably a perception issue but the secrecy over such non-important things brings this problem around.
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.
I feel similarly. I am sometimes torn between griping about the inconsistency that we see sometimes, and the carelessness about following or enforcing the rules that we thought we had to abide by and changed our lifestyle for, and being thankful that our church is a little flexible on things. I've been told that one of the express goals of our leadership has been to be gracious in relation to enforcing our discipline, and they seem to be that. My fear has been that if they for some reason don't like a person, they will then begin to pick on that person while leaving others alone. I can't really say, offhand, this I've seen that happen.
Our conference started from a congregation and a few ministers that left Eastern in the early 80s, and I assume this ideal of being a little more gracious on the church discipline might have been in reaction to what they saw as a problem in Eastern. Not sure. And it does puzzle me a little why one of our ministers is now, 40 years later, wishing we had kept a little more of the way Eastern does things (or used to do things).
I imagine he was still relatively conservative but had problems with a strict Eastern structure in the 80s. Then 40 years of slow drift happens and he looks around later in life and says “wait i didnt want there to be NO discipline enforcement”. I on some level sympathize.
mike wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 3:12 pm
I feel similarly. I am sometimes torn between griping about the inconsistency that we see sometimes, and the carelessness about following or enforcing the rules that we thought we had to abide by and changed our lifestyle for, and being thankful that our church is a little flexible on things. I've been told that one of the express goals of our leadership has been to be gracious in relation to enforcing our discipline, and they seem to be that. My fear has been that if they for some reason don't like a person, they will then begin to pick on that person while leaving others alone. I can't really say, offhand, this I've seen that happen.
Our conference started from a congregation and a few ministers that left Eastern in the early 80s, and I assume this ideal of being a little more gracious on the church discipline might have been in reaction to what they saw as a problem in Eastern. Not sure. And it does puzzle me a little why one of our ministers is now, 40 years later, wishing we had kept a little more of the way Eastern does things (or used to do things).
It’s not that I want a heartless no bend discipline but what is the point if we never address it so people know it’s actually being addressed?
Valid point, and this brings up the topic of where the appropriate place is for things like this to be addressed. I really, really dislike bringing up church 'dirty laundry' at a public service ahead of communion time. It really quashes the impact of communion as a commemoration of the death of Christ. I would much, much prefer matters of church discipline to be handled at non-public meetings such as business meetings or men's meetings, and if there is some real reason a pubic confession should be made, it should be disassociated with the communion service. Deal with it some other time, don't postpone it till communion. At communion time, I want to think about Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, and yes, my responsibility to serve my brothers, but not about you letting your mustache grow too long or some girl not wearing the right color shoes.
This is yet another case to be made for why members' meetings should be held more often. They do not have to be a big deal - they can be conducted quickly after a Sunday evening service (or Wednesday evening, if anyone still does those). They also can have positive things interspersed with them so it isn't just a special meeting that ends up functioning to shame 1 person.
JohnH wrote: ↑Tue Mar 31, 2026 3:52 pm
This is yet another case to be made for why members' meetings should be held more often. They do not have to be a big deal - they can be conducted quickly after a Sunday evening service (or Wednesday evening, if anyone still does those). They also can have positive things interspersed with them so it isn't just a special meeting that ends up functioning to shame 1 person.
Or even better, have them whenever they have at least 2
mike wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2026 4:32 pm
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.
I grew up in a fairly evangelical, theologically-conservative Lancaster Conference congregation out on the edges of the conference and I clearly remember this happening once in the late 90’s when I was in high school. It actually happened in the church meeting during the service and not the members/council meeting. It may have happened during council meetings but my parents never talked about what went on there so I couldn’t say. I myself was actually the one standing and confessing in a different, much older LMC congregation, many years later during a council meeting. So yes, this definitely was and probably still is a practice in some LMC congregations.
