Elder Blunck,
I write to seek your counsel.
My heart has been weighed down recently by a series of disciplinary councils. In the past 10 months we have had five such councils for holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood, including three high priests (including a former bishop) and a returned missionary who waited until his departure day to confess serious transgressions. Of the five, two have resulted in excommunication and three disfellowshipment. In my years of church leadership I’ve never experienced so many in such a short time. Frankly, it has been heartbreaking and wearying like no other time in my church service.
In setting forth terms for all of these brethren, in every case I have explained that they are encouraged to attend “public Church meetings” as described in Section 6 of Handbook 1, but that their participation is “limited.” As described in 6.9.2 that limited participation means they are not to offer public prayers, partake of the sacrament or sustain Church officers. I’ve also suggested that they are not to participate in class discussion.
As I follow up with these brethren, I have been touched that almost without fail they cite that one of the most painful aspects of their journey to complete and sincere repentance is the inability to participate in class discussions.
As I review the handbook, it occurs to me that I may have interpreted the spirit of “limited participation in Church public meetings” beyond the scope of the handbook instruction.
Before making an official change of direction, including notifying these brethren they are allowed to participate in class discussions, I would welcome your counsel. Do you see any problem with reversing the direction I have taken in the past?
In my opinion, here are the Pro’s and Con’s of reversing direction:
PRO: Not being allowed to participate in class discussions can make the disciplined member feel ostracized, that he has nothing of value to contribute. Moreover, teachers do not know who is under formal discipline thus creating the potential for some very awkward, even embarrassing, moments in the class when a disciplined member is called on to contribute in class discussion. Finally, non-members are allowed to speak in a Church meeting so a member under a no-participation restriction feels even less valued.
CON: Unable to participate in a class helps the disciplined member appreciate more than ever the blessing of membership and full fellowship with the Saints. Class participation heightens the risk that he will inadvertently expose his disciplined status and/or criticize priesthood leaders (though the risk is very low).
I guess as I write this it is even more obvious to me that I have been too strict in my interpretation of “limited participation in Church public meetings.” In fact, the word “limited” may be the key. If the Brethren didn’t want any participation by disciplined members, they would have said, “no participation in Church public meetings.”
Still, I will share this email with you and invite you to share any counsel on the subject or insights you may have gleaned from the Brethren. If you prefer not to comment, I will not be offended.
Thank you for listening,
Crismon Lewis
President, Mount Hood Stake
No comments:
Post a Comment