An elder once told me that sitting in on Judicial Committees was tough, "because you have determine if they're really repentant. They'll cry crocodile tears, and say how sorry they are, but you can't always believe them."
It seems to me that a) if they came forward with their "sin" in the first place, that's pretty substantial proof of repentance; b) if they can summon up "crocodile tears" when not truly sorry, then they deserve to stay in--as a reward for superior acting talent, if for no other reason; and c) if they've sinned, even if not obviously repentant, they shouldn't scripturally be kicked out, if they're not trying to subvert the masses--they should be helped.
What brings this to mind is the recent court case with which SilentLambs has been involved. If I recall correctly, the pedophile brother (hereafter known simply as the bastard) was DFd for six months for the bastard's multiple crimes.
outnfree wondered if the bastard would now be DFd, since the bastard has been found guilty in a court of law. I don't think the bastard will. The elders will decide that the bastard has already been punished, and determined by God to be repentant.
What I find so incredibly ironic is that the bastard is APPEALING the verdict! Does this bespeak repentance? Elders ignore tears shed from sorrow, guilt, and desperation, but the bastard has never fully admitted to what the bastard did--showing his bastardly self to be decidedly unrepentant--and the congregation will probably take no further action against the bastard. If the bastard ever was repentant, the bastard has certainly shown that the bastard no longer feels that way.
[edited because one shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.]
Hmmm
