Dealing with Infractions - Lancaster Conference

[Ernie]

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.

This makes me really curious what types of standard violations would have still been addressed/confessed in Lancaster Conference in the late 90's and later.

[Ernie]

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 don't have any sympathy for folks who agreed to follow a certain standard and then don't keep their word. I think such folks can make confessions without being publicly shamed. A person can simply acknowledge that they did not keep their word and that they are sorry and then that is the end of it.

Now if the standard was unclear or if they truly thought certain exceptions to standards were allowed, that is a different story. I have plenty of sympathy for such folks.

[Ernie]

Maybe I'm too soft but I don't have confidence in shame as a motivation. I've seen it cause bitterness but I haven't seen good fruit.

So when Paul instructs to "rebuke sharply" and "to rebuke before all", do you think this is outdated or do you think it is possible to do these two things without shaming a person?

[mike]

Maybe I'm too soft but I don't have confidence in shame as a motivation. I've seen it cause bitterness but I haven't seen good fruit.

So when Paul instructs to "rebuke sharply" and "to rebuke before all", do you think this is outdated or do you think it is possible to do these two things without shaming a person?

I was going to bring up the same points. There is something about public rebuke that has value when done rightly, according to scripture. We probably have some actual examples in the NT as well.

[ken_sylvania]

Maybe I'm too soft but I don't have confidence in shame as a motivation. I've seen it cause bitterness but I haven't seen good fruit.

I think that the solution to that problem is to deal with the attitude that thinks public confession is shameful, rather than avoiding the Biblical practice of confession because it seems to be shameful.

[joshuabgood]

Maybe I'm too soft but I don't have confidence in shame as a motivation. I've seen it cause bitterness but I haven't seen good fruit.

I think that the solution to that problem is to deal with the attitude that thinks public confession is shameful, rather than avoiding the Biblical practice of confession because it seems to be shameful.

In the rather conservative setting I grew up in, the only public confessions were, *gross* sexual sins. (That was the word used.) Children were part of these services, at least on occasion. I explicitly remember 2-3 of them. I have a dim view of such for a bunch of reasons. Is that what Joseph was angling for with Mary?

[mike]

Maybe I'm too soft but I don't have confidence in shame as a motivation. I've seen it cause bitterness but I haven't seen good fruit.

I think that the solution to that problem is to deal with the attitude that thinks public confession is shameful, rather than avoiding the Biblical practice of confession because it seems to be shameful.

In the rather conservative setting I grew up in, the only public confessions were, *gross* sexual sins. (That was the word used.) Children were part of these services, at least on occasion. I explicitly remember 2-3 of them. I have a dim view of such for a bunch of reasons. Is that what Joseph was angling for with Mary?

There are people who don't need to know the content of public confessions, such as children or people who are not part of the congregation, which is another reason to have such confessions at church business meetings.

[Ernie]

I think that the solution to that problem is to deal with the attitude that thinks public confession is shameful, rather than avoiding the Biblical practice of confession because it seems to be shameful.

In the rather conservative setting I grew up in, the only public confessions were, *gross* sexual sins. (That was the word used.) Children were part of these services, at least on occasion. I explicitly remember 2-3 of them. I have a dim view of such for a bunch of reasons. Is that what Joseph was angling for with Mary?

There are people who don't need to know the content of public confessions, such as children or people who are not part of the congregation, which is another reason to have such confessions at church business meetings.

And it is possible to give enough information that adults are aware of the nature of the sin, without giving so much detail that children are negatively affected.
If more detail is needed, yes, that can happen at church business meetings.

[barnhart]

Maybe I'm too soft but I don't have confidence in shame as a motivation. I've seen it cause bitterness but I haven't seen good fruit.

So when Paul instructs to "rebuke sharply" and "to rebuke before all", do you think this is outdated or do you think it is possible to do these two things without shaming a person?

Good question and I don't really have an answer. The Titus passage seems to be in the context of false teaching and materialism so maybe this is something to consider. The Timothy passage is less clear what type of transgression is worthy of this response but is it reasonable to suggest public sin necessitates public confession and private sin private confession.

I'm not against public confession, there is spiritual power in it when it comes from true repentance. The element I question is coersing people to do it.

[mike]

In the rather conservative setting I grew up in, the only public confessions were, *gross* sexual sins. (That was the word used.) Children were part of these services, at least on occasion. I explicitly remember 2-3 of them. I have a dim view of such for a bunch of reasons. Is that what Joseph was angling for with Mary?

There are people who don't need to know the content of public confessions, such as children or people who are not part of the congregation, which is another reason to have such confessions at church business meetings.

And it is possible to give enough information that adults are aware of the nature of the sin, without giving so much detail that children are negatively affected.
If more detail is needed, yes, that can happen at church business meetings.

That works as well. And I have no problem with leaders in these instances telling a person exactly what they should say in public about it.