Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[joshuabgood]

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.

I can understand this. The wisdom is sharing the right amount.

[mike]

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.

I can understand this. The wisdom is sharing the right amount.

After all, churches get roundly criticized for covering up sin when they don't deal with serious sins in full public view. A person can't really be against the value of public confession while being critical of churches who decide to be discreet in how they handle some of these serious types of sins.

[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.

I can understand this. The wisdom is sharing the right amount.

After all, churches get roundly criticized for covering up sin when they don't deal with serious sins in full public view. A person can't really be against the value of public confession while being critical of churches who decide to be discreet in how they handle some of these serious types of sins.

Yet it sounds like conservative churches that try to have public confessions get accused of "shaming".

[mike]

I can understand this. The wisdom is sharing the right amount.

After all, churches get roundly criticized for covering up sin when they don't deal with serious sins in full public view. A person can't really be against the value of public confession while being critical of churches who decide to be discreet in how they handle some of these serious types of sins.

Yet it sounds like conservative churches that try to have public confessions get accused of "shaming".

Right, that's my point, and of course when an Amish or Mennonite person is charged with a crime, it is often spread by some on social media for the specific purpose of shaming.

[barnhart]

After all, churches get roundly criticized for covering up sin when they don't deal with serious sins in full public view. A person can't really be against the value of public confession while being critical of churches who decide to be discreet in how they handle some of these serious types of sins.

Fair point.

[MattY]

I can understand this. The wisdom is sharing the right amount.

After all, churches get roundly criticized for covering up sin when they don't deal with serious sins in full public view. A person can't really be against the value of public confession while being critical of churches who decide to be discreet in how they handle some of these serious types of sins.

Yet it sounds like conservative churches that try to have public confessions get accused of "shaming".

I agree with public confession of serious sins, particularly sins that involve multiple people, as you said.

I think - I could be wrong - but I think the type of thing that people object to as "shaming" in such conservative churches is the type of infraction that was brought up in the original post - infractions of the church's discipline, not the type of serious sexual or moral sins that you all have been talking about here. For example, about 15 years ago, we had a couple girls who had to publicly confess for parting their hair on the side rather than in the middle. And instead of talking directly to the girls about it, people who noticed stuff like this (I never noticed, never having cared about it) would complain to the ministers about it at counsel meeting and expect the ministers to talk to them about it. Even if you say the girls shouldn't have been doing that, this type of thing is hurtful, not helpful to the girls.

Today, both girls are married and in more liberal congregations, while we no longer have the rule about parting the hair in the middle, having gotten rid of it about 10 years ago. And most of the people who probably cared and complained about the girls back then are no longer with the church either, since there was an issue with one of them who had hidden a sexual sin for years; they did not want to make a full confession of the sin and of lying about it, and so had to be excommunicated. But how much better would it have been for the health and harmony of the entire church not to have made an issue of such inconsequential details in the first place? To be sure, it is not right to just blatantly ignore what you have promised to observe. But this is an illustration of what Paul says, the law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. And if there is no unnecessary (and unscriptural) rule about parting of the hair, then there would be no sinful violation of the law either. Perhaps the leaders should also have been made to confess for sinfully setting up human rules about disputable and inconsequential matters in the first place.

[Ernie]

Perhaps the leaders should also have been made to confess for sinfully setting up human rules about disputable and inconsequential matters in the first place.

So it was the leaders who made this rule, not the congregation?

Do you have any problem with congregations or churches making human ruled about disputable and matters deemed inconsequential by some in the church?

In Hebrews we are told to obey them that have the rule over us. How do you interpret that verse? Some people say, "Leaders should not ask anyone to do something that is not taught in the Bible." If that is the case, the Hebrew writer could have said, "Obey the teachings of the Bible."

[mike]

After all, churches get roundly criticized for covering up sin when they don't deal with serious sins in full public view. A person can't really be against the value of public confession while being critical of churches who decide to be discreet in how they handle some of these serious types of sins.

Yet it sounds like conservative churches that try to have public confessions get accused of "shaming".

I agree with public confession of serious sins, particularly sins that involve multiple people, as you said.

I think - I could be wrong - but I think the type of thing that people object to as "shaming" in such conservative churches is the type of infraction that was brought up in the original post - infractions of the church's discipline, not the type of serious sexual or moral sins that you all have been talking about here. For example, about 15 years ago, we had a couple girls who had to publicly confess for parting their hair on the side rather than in the middle. And instead of talking directly to the girls about it, people who noticed stuff like this (I never noticed, never having cared about it) would complain to the ministers about it at counsel meeting and expect the ministers to talk to them about it. Even if you say the girls shouldn't have been doing that, this type of thing is hurtful, not helpful to the girls.

Today, both girls are married and in more liberal congregations, while we no longer have the rule about parting the hair in the middle, having gotten rid of it about 10 years ago. And most of the people who probably cared and complained about the girls back then are no longer with the church either, since there was an issue with one of them who had hidden a sexual sin for years; they did not want to make a full confession of the sin and of lying about it, and so had to be excommunicated. But how much better would it have been for the health and harmony of the entire church not to have made an issue of such inconsequential details in the first place? To be sure, it is not right to just blatantly ignore what you have promised to observe. But this is an illustration of what Paul says, the law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. And if there is no unnecessary (and unscriptural) rule about parting of the hair, then there would be no sinful violation of the law either. Perhaps the leaders should also have been made to confess for sinfully setting up human rules about disputable and inconsequential matters in the first place.

Yes to all of this. Our church has a written policy in its discipline where no minister is allowed to receive a complaint about another member from someone unless that person has first gone directly to that person with his concern. I was very intrigued by that policy when we first joined, and wondered whether it is actually followed.

Unfortunately we have the same dynamic with council meetings, although we two types of those - the regular ones, where we simply stand in a circle and each person says whether they have anything to bring up, that they are at peace with God and others, and that they support the discipline of the church. But once every year, or maybe two, I forget, we have a thing called family council where an entire family sits down with the ministry for a 10 or 15 minute session. I've started to become gun-shy of these, because this is where people tend to bring up non-specific "concerns" that are ostensibly not directed at certain people, but in all likelihood probably are. And because they are general concerns, the bishop gives a report of these concerns publicly, and if it happens that you are one of the reasons for said "concern," you can be pretty blind-sided.

I find that very disappointing. It reflects how difficult it is for people to just go directly to someone and discuss a concern directly. It's so much easier to complain to the preachers and let them get up front and give out the concern.

I remember being at an Eastern baptism a few years ago where we were invited to attend, and it was also a preparation for communion meeting of some kind. The bishop brought up some names of people who were not going to be allowed to participate, and gave the reasons, one of whom was a couple who served at a wedding where they were apparently not supposed to. It just soured the atmosphere to what should really have been a really happy occasion, and for something that, let's be honest, is a far cry from being a grave moral sin. I have no idea where that couple is today but I strongly suspect they are no longer with that church, like many others from that church who have moved on to other groups over the years.

If a church objects to such behavior, and if people knowingly violate these sorts of expectations, then yes it should be addressed, but surely there are better ways.

[Ernie]

And instead of talking directly to the girls about it, people who noticed stuff like this (I never noticed, never having cared about it) would complain to the ministers about it at counsel meeting and expect the ministers to talk to them about it. Even if you say the girls shouldn't have been doing that, this type of thing is hurtful, not helpful to the girls.

I agree.

I think it is fine in a counsel meeting to tell the leaders of the church, "I think we should not have standards in our church that we don't expect people to keep. For example... "

I agree that the ministers shouldn't need to do the policing.

Many years ago, I heard of a bishop who received lots of complaints by members against other members.
After listening to the complaint, he would write it down in his notebook and read it back to the person making the complaint to make sure he understood the complaint correctly. When the complainer agreed, the bishop would then ask the complainer to sign his name behind the complaint so that when he addressed it with the person being complained about, he could show the person the complaint in writing and who made the complaint. As I understand, he never got a signature.
Had the bishop actually followed through with this method, it might not have been the most scriptural, but maybe the bishop never intended to follow through if someone signed it. Maybe it was the bishop's way of teaching Matthew 18.

A bishop friend of mine recently asked his congregation, "Do you want me to enforce the church rules and make my children do things you do not expect your children to do? Or should we all enforce the rules in our own households?" I don't really have any sympathy for folks who agreed to abide by the rules of an Order, but then don't do it, regardless of how silly or unnecessary the rules may seem. No one is required to join a Christian Order. There are umpteen Christian churches that require very little. Why try to force change on the one you are part of? I have no problem with a member inquiring of the church whether there is interest in changing the rule, and giving one's reasons for why they think the rule should be dropped, as long as they don't treat the thoughts of those who differ with them as being inferior. If some in the church don't want to drop a rule that everyone agreed to, then the person can submit or he is free to move on.

[JohnH]

And if there is no unnecessary (and unscriptural) rule about parting of the hair, then there would be no sinful violation of the law either. Perhaps the leaders should also have been made to confess for sinfully setting up human rules about disputable and inconsequential matters in the first place.

This is an argument that some denominations like BMA make, but the end of it will be barely having any Christian life at all - after all, the New Testament doesn't say you can't go to movies, watch DVDs, and so forth.