Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[JohnH]

One thing that helps is to have far less emphasis on specific clothing styles. Amish have far more lifestyle standards that aren’t just clothes which is why I think they are more successful.

Holdemans have much less emphasis on clothes too. There are cultural customs but they aren’t church standards. Interestingly nearly all people end up conforming to the general cultural customs, but without an enforced discipline.

I think Beachy and related groups suffer from too much focus on clothing. There are a lot of other relevant standards.

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

In my case, it was definitely that. Shame was definitely there but I don’t think shame is always a bad thing. All in all I look back on the event and am thankful for it.

[MattY]

The apostles issued directives such as
"If you don't work, don't eat."
"Don't adorn with braided hair or wear gold and pearls".
"Support widows who have washed the saints feet and other good works."
"Nephews should take care of widows."
"Parents should lay up for the children."

I can imagine that some who were not doing these things felt shamed by the apostles. I'm guessing that some felt these directives were unnecessary or unscriptural.

So a question...
Do church leaders today have the same authority to give such directives, about media and entertainment for example, or can they only repeat the directives that the apostles gave in the New Testament?

I would say that, first, no one has the authority to make such directives with the same authority that the apostles did (apostolic authority). Second, and this might be saying the same thing, no one has the infallible authority to write inerrant scripture with such directives in it, like the apostles did. Leaders today do have authority and should be respected, but they are subject to scriptural correction - we should be like the Bereans.

[MattY]

But often they were just not necessary standards in the first place.

According to your view...

Who gets to be the authority to decide whether they are necessary?

The word of God.
I think the addition of extrabiblical standards undermines God's law written on our hearts, and comes from too low an opinion of God's law - not too high a view of it. We don't protect the law of God (nor Christian morality, nor the Christian life) by adding a fence around it to make it more outwardly impressive or visible or to make it feel more manageable. The best way to promote the law of God (by which I mean New Testament teaching, not Moses' law) is to preach it, proclaim it, and obey it. A church might find it necessary to add additional instruction at times, but it should always be done carefully, where God's law makes it necessary (such as forbidding membership in the Freemasons), and where God's law is not rigid, the instructions should not be rigid.

[barnhart]

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.

In my case, it was definitely that. Shame was definitely there but I don’t think shame is always a bad thing. All in all I look back on the event and am thankful for it.

If I had seen more good results like this, perhaps I would have a different view.

[MattY]

What you describe is very common in Plain Anabaptist churches. I don't know how common it is in other churches with a dress code.
I've written extensively about the problem you describe and a solution for it. Our church does not do what you describe. The inevitability only happens in churches that are predisposed to thinking that specific uniforms and communion go hand-in-hand.

As far as those who born and joined later, again, it is voluntary. They don't have to join. They can go to a church that does not require these things. So either a person helps make the rules initially, or a person agrees to keep the rules that were already made. Either way, it is a voluntary commitment to keep the rules.

And the idea of a more holy group by having a separate lifestyle with strict external rules is as flawed now as it was when monasticism was invented

This is not an either/or situation. It is possible to for a group to commit themselves to a separate lifestyle with external rules, not to make themselves more holy than others, but to accomplish certain spiritual goals for which they all are striving for.

- but again, if it's totally voluntary and consists of a group *within* a church that's free to join and free to leave with no consequences (I'm talking about leaving the special club, not leaving the church), whose members attend church and fellowship like normal with all members who don't wear the specific uniforms: I wouldn't say they're doing something wrong, they have commendable zeal, even if they've applied it in a little misguided fashion.

Why do you think this is misguided?

That's rather different than anything I've heard of. It's interesting. Maybe it's not misguided, I shouldn't judge. But my tendency to think so comes from my skepticism of monasticism, I think. I'm not a fan of comparing Anabaptism to monasteries or justifying things we do in that way. I realize you haven't mentioned monasticism; but avoiding monasticism and separating into groups with ascetic rules about marriage, eating, and what types of clothes to wear is one of my values, and one of the ways in which the medieval church went wrong. I can sympathize with them - they were looking at the inclusion of society in general in the church without true repentance - but I can't agree with their solution.

[JohnH]

but avoiding monasticism and separating into groups with ascetic rules about marriage, eating, and what types of clothes to wear is one of my values

Anabaptists meet all these criteria, though.

They have strict rules about marriage, such as requiring marriage to be to another member and to also be approved by church leadership. Other evangelical groups don't do this. You can go marry anyone you want at the justice of the peace and there will be zero church discipline.

Every plain or conservative Anabaptist group has expectations about what clothes to be worn.

The only thing Anabaptists don't do is regular fasting and ethical concerns about food or else choosing to abstain from excessively extravagant foodstuffs. However, I think this is an area of blindness for Anabaptists, considering how much the NT says about fasting, and also that our ethical concerns about many other things should extent to the ethics of material used to create fabric for clothing and the ethics of how food is produced.

(I personally consider how clothing is produced to be as important as the particular style / cut / and even modesty.)

[Ernie]

But often they were just not necessary standards in the first place.

According to your view...

Who gets to be the authority to decide whether they are necessary?

The word of God.
I think the addition of extrabiblical standards undermines God's law written on our hearts, and comes from too low an opinion of God's law - not too high a view of it. We don't protect the law of God (nor Christian morality, nor the Christian life) by adding a fence around it to make it more outwardly impressive or visible or to make it feel more manageable. The best way to promote the law of God (by which I mean New Testament teaching, not Moses' law) is to preach it, proclaim it, and obey it. A church might find it necessary to add additional instruction at times, but it should always be done carefully, where God's law makes it necessary (such as forbidding membership in the Freemasons), and where God's law is not rigid, the instructions should not be rigid.

So, if I am understanding correctly, you are the one who decides whether a matter is necessary according to the scriptures and in which matters a church can add additional instruction, and in which matters a church may not give additional instruction.

Finny, in his treatise on the Autopsy of Dead Church tries to make the case for not making a fence around the Torah and a case for biblical standards and extra-biblical standards. This theology was very attractive to large numbers of Anabaptists who felt their church's rules were unbiblical.
But at the end of the day, Finny and his fellow leaders are the ones that get to decide this.
As each year went by, Finny and his fellow leaders kept adding "additional instructions" and things to forbid, but in their minds they were not creating extra biblical standards because they thought they had a good reason that they could make from the Bible for why they were adding things.
Many dozens of people who left FOTW were not ok with the bait and switch. One told me, "At least Anabaptists are up front about their standards. That is much more honest."

I think the whole argument that there are biblical standards and unbiblical standards, as defined by Finny and company is a false dichotomy.

I believe in biblical standards, more biblical standards, less biblical standards and unbiblical standards. I see these on a spectrum. By viewing them on a spectrum, it allows for more humility in acknowledging that our judgement on these matters might be clouded and that others may see something that we do not. At the same time, on a different issue, I may see something that others do not.

On the example you used, regarding where to part one's hair. I understood you to say that this standard was unnecessary and unscriptural.
Well... The scriptures do tell us to not love the world.
There is a case that can be made from scripture that women should cover their glory.
So, if a woman wants people to see more of her glory, especially if the style is following a fashion of the world, I think it is totally appropriate for churches to "add additional instructions" on matters like these. It may not be as critical a matter as membership with the Freemasons but the way people arrive at these conclusions/positions is the same, I think.

[Ernie]

That's rather different than anything I've heard of. It's interesting. Maybe it's not misguided, I shouldn't judge. But my tendency to think so comes from my skepticism of monasticism, I think. I'm not a fan of comparing Anabaptism to monasteries or justifying things we do in that way. I realize you haven't mentioned monasticism; but avoiding monasticism and separating into groups with ascetic rules about marriage, eating, and what types of clothes to wear is one of my values, and one of the ways in which the medieval church went wrong. I can sympathize with them - they were looking at the inclusion of society in general in the church without true repentance - but I can't agree with their solution.

So, if a group of brothers or sisters decide to meet weekly for accountability apart from the rest of the body, and they agree to deny themselves of certain things that could cause unnecessary temptation, and they do this in order to encourage each other to greater holiness and faithfulness to God, is there anything wrong or undesirable with this? (assuming they do not look down on others who do not deny themselves of these things)

And if a group of parents agree to hold each other accountable to certain disciplines in their homes, so as to not get sucked into the sorts of things that many families get sucked into, is there anything wrong or undesirable about this? (assuming they do not look down on others who do not adopt these disciplines)

And if a group of believers agree to certain standards, that will remind them of their desire to not love the world, is there anything wrong or undesirable about this? (assuming they do not look down on others who do not adopt these standards and are willing to commune with them)

[MattY]

but avoiding monasticism and separating into groups with ascetic rules about marriage, eating, and what types of clothes to wear is one of my values

Anabaptists meet all these criteria, though.

They have strict rules about marriage, such as requiring marriage to be to another member and to also be approved by church leadership. Other evangelical groups don't do this. You can go marry anyone you want at the justice of the peace and there will be zero church discipline.

I said *ascetic* rules, by which I meant forbidding marriage and requiring abstention from certain kinds of foods, such as eating meat during Lent. Paul forbids such rules in 1 Tim. 4:3 - they are marks of false teachers. And are you familiar with the "Affair of the Sausages" that launched Zwingli's reformation in 1522? Several of those who participated - associates of Conrad Grebel, though I don't think he participated (he may or may not have been there) - went on a radical path that led them to Anabaptism. This was a precursor to Anabaptism, one of the events that led up to it, and rejection of these kinds of rules regarding meat is perfectly in line with the origins of Anabaptism.