Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[Ernie]

Recently, a minister in a conservative Mennonite conference was found guilty of sexual sin. He did not repent. A bishop in this conference made a public statement regarding the offender, and described his feelings of betrayal, disgust, shock, and even anger. He didn't go into detail about the sin.
I thought his way of handling it allowed the congregation to understand that it is ok to feel what they are feeling about the matter. Had they had an adult meeting in which the sins were more fully explained and how the conference was dealing with the matter, people would not have needed to learn what they did from the rumor mill. But I at least appreciated how the bishop helped the congregation work through the betrayal and anger.

[barnhart]

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.

This is a reasonable concern but it is based on the assumption drift is caused by insufficient enforcement. I have some questions about that theory.

[Anthony]

Isnt the point of the public rebukes and confessions to instill shame and like Paul says “so the rest may stand in fear”? I have never seen anyone imply that the public confession is supposed to have a redemptive element.

This might be “mean”, but i think its the main tool a church has in enforcing discipline, besides excommunication/shunning. You can both rebuke a brother publicly and help him work through his issues afterwards.

[mike]

Isnt the point of the public rebukes and confessions to instill shame and like Paul says “so the rest may stand in fear”? I have never seen anyone imply that the public confession is supposed to have a redemptive element.

This might be “mean”, but i think its the main tool a church has in enforcing discipline, besides excommunication/shunning. You can both rebuke a brother publicly and help him work through his issues afterwards.

If you think about it from the perspective of the offender, public confession gives the opportunity to set the record straight as opposed to having everybody find out through the rumor mill with all the distortions that brings. So there's that.

[Soloist]

Personally I see the public rebuke as applicable to ministry only.

In regard to unrepentant sin though, that also becomes public but from my impression of the scripture, the laity can confess and repent without public testimony.

I view someone who confesses and repents of their own accord needing support but not this “unmembering” for a few months nonsense.

Someone who is prodded to confess would seem reasonable to hold back for proving.

Unrepentant should be welcomed back if later they repent.

A defiant person is not lying. A person who willingly with no one knowing is repentant. A person prodded is not trustworthy as they concealed their sin and only admitted it because the cost of defiance was weighed too high.

Of course I also believe the Scriptures aren’t referring to communion when Paul was writing about the excommunicated.

[Ernie]

Isnt the point of the public rebukes and confessions to instill shame and like Paul says “so the rest may stand in fear”? I have never seen anyone imply that the public confession is supposed to have a redemptive element.

This might be “mean”, but i think its the main tool a church has in enforcing discipline, besides excommunication/shunning. You can both rebuke a brother publicly and help him work through his issues afterwards.

I've always heard that any sort of church discipline is supposed to have a redemptive element. Discipline is to help a person see the seriousness of his sin so that he will not do it again.

If a person sins and is deeply sorrowful about it, a rebuke may not be needful for the first time or two. Confession may be sufficient.
If the sin continues, then maybe rebuke is in order if it seems the person is no longer deeply sorrowful about it.

As far as confessions/rebukes related to church standards that are not ethical matters, I think a lot of people (who think the church should not be expecting confessions/rebukes for violating standards) miss the point. Most times doing something different than the church standard is not a sin in and of itself. The sin is agreeing or promising to do something and then not taking that commitment seriously.

As it relates to standards that are not ethical matters, I do question whether church leaders should "enforce" standards.
Church membership is voluntary. Anyone can join and anyone can leave. So rather than ask a member to make a confession, I think it is simply better to remind a person that they failed to honor their word and their commitment to the church, and then ask them whether they want to continue keeping the standard or whether they don't. Either way, they could be encouraged to confess their error and then either withdraw their membership or continue being a member, whatever they choose.

Perhaps the confession could simply be, "I am sorry that I did not take my commitment seriously enough to abide by the standard I agreed to."

I was a dean at a conservative Anabaptist Bible school for 4 years and this was my line of appeal. "You signed an application saying that you will abide by the standards of the school. Is your signature, your name, any good?

One student told me, "Everybody knows that signing your name does not mean you plan to follow the school rules."
Well, he was wrong. Many students did intend to follow the rules and they wanted to be a person of their word.

[joshuabgood]

This is a reasonable concern but it is based on the assumption drift is caused by insufficient enforcement. I have some questions about that theory.

I do to. The assumption that "enforcement of rules" is path to "wholeness," that is, holiness, is one that I find highly suspect. More rules and more enforcement (punishment/proving/public confessions/rebukes) are perhaps insufficient to create the "wholeness" and culture that the Kingdom of God strives for. If such an assumption "works," wouldn't the law and the OT have been sufficient to create righteousness?

*Note...I am not advocating for no mutual accountability.

[joshuabgood]

Isnt the point of the public rebukes and confessions to instill shame and like Paul says “so the rest may stand in fear”? I have never seen anyone imply that the public confession is supposed to have a redemptive element.

This might be “mean”, but i think its the main tool a church has in enforcing discipline, besides excommunication/shunning. You can both rebuke a brother publicly and help him work through his issues afterwards.

Is that how Jesus handled the woman caught in sin?

[joshuabgood]

Isnt the point of the public rebukes and confessions to instill shame and like Paul says “so the rest may stand in fear”? I have never seen anyone imply that the public confession is supposed to have a redemptive element.

This might be “mean”, but i think its the main tool a church has in enforcing discipline, besides excommunication/shunning. You can both rebuke a brother publicly and help him work through his issues afterwards.

If you think about it from the perspective of the offender, public confession gives the opportunity to set the record straight as opposed to having everybody find out through the rumor mill with all the distortions that brings. So there's that.

Another solution might be have the rumor mill mongers publicly confess =).

[JohnH]

When immorality happens, particularly that involves multiple people, I do think enough detail need to be shared that the congregation can understand what actually happened. There is far too much that goes on where there is a desire to sweep these things under the rug.