How to cure the pain

One of the questions that arises a lot in discussions of people who are breaking away from abusive churches is how to deal with the pain. I was reading an article on counseling x-cultists where Dr. Martin identified 3 views that are shattered as the result of leaving Christian faith based cults:

1. The belief in personal invulnerability,
2. The perception of the world as meaningful,
3. The perception of oneself as positive

The article goes on to give a Christian approach to counseling that sounds quite long term. In looking at the above list another possibility popped into my mind as being potentially an excellent response to this list and I thought I would open up a discussion on it. The Landmark forum is a 3 day intensive program that produces a Zen Satori experience, that is a transformation in a person's way of thinking viewing the world and themselves. In particular it addresses all 3 of the above very very directly. For the x-cultist:

• Rather then seeing themselves as having had to have been invulnerable they will be hearing from all walks of life that trauma is a fundamental part of human existence and formative, "you are a meaning making machine" and the theory of winning formulas.
  
• Landmark is well known for their belief that meaning comes from man not the world itself, "life is empty and meaningless". That is they teach Heidegger / Existentialism as a philosophical approach.
  
• Landmark reconstructs for people a positive view of themselves outside of past errors in judgment, that is a method to really, "leave the past in the past".
  

It also could help with many of the other regular issues one encounters:

• How to fix relationships broken with family and friends: Landmark is very good at reigniting past or damaged relationships. That is there is a real possibility of quick fixes.
• Regret for wasted years help to deal with it
• How to deal with issues of guilt
• How to reconstruct a value system independently of the dogmatic views held by the cult.
  

And again we are talking about these sorts of results in a weekend not over an extended period of time. There are however 2 objections that are worth bring up. The first is theological, Landmark doesn't directly contradict Christianity but as Alex Churchill puts it, "They freely admit that they're only concerned with life before death, which from a Christian point of view seems short-sighted". Moreover there isn't a single reference to the bible in the course, for those with a strong opinion on the sufficiency of scripture they may find this upsetting. I happen to think this might be helpful, in that it would allow people to look passages a different way with less resistance and thus break certain cultic theological positions.

The second problem is that Landmark itself has a very hard sell approach and can be consuming. That is while Landmark is not a cult, it is possible to relate to Landmark like a cult. However, I think that is unlikely to happen for most of the people who read this blog; for one thing they likely lack the financial resources to spend thousands a year on courses. For another thing most people involved in Landmark are liberal Christians / Jews / Hindu / Muslims, new agers or atheists. Socially people with strong traditional values just aren't likely to see Landmark as anything more than a workshop, the social aspects would stop them from getting too involved in the social circle.

So before throwing this out more generally I would love to open up the floor. This does seem like a really good way for people to break out of cultic and post-cultic mindsets almost instantly. It would be wonderful to tell people they could get over a good chunk of the emotional trauma in a weekend. Anyone have an opinion?

Links:

• Landmark Education

Rules for Due Process

This blog is mainly directed at standard members of churches. This is one of the rare posts directed at pastors. Its a series of some short advisories on how to avoid church splits and embarrassment due to discipline. The key point is due process, transparency and openness.

1) Any excommunication will have substantially less support 2 years after it is administered.
As the anger dies down more general issues begin to be questioned and people will become more circumspect. Make sure you will still have sufficient support even if people explore the issue from a variety of angles.

One of the best ways to do this is to have a recorded vote of the majority affirming a specific statement (and allow for various statements), like what is done in superior courts. You want people on record agreeing to the statements and you want them to feel comfortable that the statement that they signed reflected their views at the time. It is not neccesary that the statements reflect their current view however.

Another key point is to convict on the underlying issue or not at all. It can be very tempting to go for an easy conviction with the major crime in mind (see link for a pastor recommending exactly this approach). In the example the pastor advocates excommunication for contumacy when the underlying issue is embezzlement. Do not take the cheap way out and go convict on a minor offense when the major offense is the real reason. The evidence for the major offense will disappear and often the minor offense information is fairly weak. Without the major offense the actions on the minor offense will seem excessive and will soon lack support.

2) Keep good records
Make sure you have good records, regarding the facts and the debate. Think about how much effort courts go to in maintaining records. Make sure that you have written records from everyone. So for example if you assert that person X did Y to Z have a deposition from Z confirming that fact, and have Z sign it. If you can't do that then have 2 witnesses to every charge and again have them signed.

If there was counter evidence presented at the time have excellent records as to how it was investigated and why it dismissed. The congregation will excuse leadership for making errors, they won't excuse leadership for not performing due diligence.

3) Avoiding bullying the membership.
Avoid things like bullying to get people to support leadership's position. Bullying of members will work in the short term and then fail in the long term. Members who reluctantly support will look for excuses to change sides as pressure increases. Leadership can easily get an excommunication motion through with 20-30% support. But they will need 65%+ support (and better yet 90%+) to defend it publically once the critique starts.

So, if the congregation is split on the appropriate penalty choose the lessor one.

4) Have a documented reconciliation / restoration process and keep it open.
Often excommunication is confused with anathema if the disciplining church is not seen as having a reasonable reconciliation option. Be sure that the level of repentance required is understood in advance and supported during. A congregation can split after the fact if the convicted offers an apology that some see as insufficient and others believe is sufficient. 3 types of apologies should be differentiated:

1. A censure does not require repentance just to stand for it i.e. the person needs to acknowledge the censure and remain in obedience after its administration. They are not required to affirm the justice of the censure
2. A call for repentance can be met via. a simple apology
3. A demand for restitution requires actual fruits.

If you want a higher form make sure that is clear at the time that the punishment / excommunication occurs.

5) Have the extent of punishment or shunning be public.
Leadership should attempt to punish acts of cruelty perpetrated by members against former members, that your church does not approve of. Light censure of such acts is always seen as encouragement. Remember if you don't oppose it you encouraged it.

6) Have a genuine appeals process
It is important that the membership and outsiders believe the appeals process is genuine. Make sure the people involved in the appeals process were not the ones involved in the original conviction. If possible make sure that at least one appeal has been successful recently. The pre-existing appeals process will lower external criticism and will relieve pressure within the church. People who come to believe the original act was unjust or factually incorrect should be encouraged to enter into the appeals process. This helps separate dissent from division. There will always be a court of appeal, either the church will pick it or the public will.

7) Have a clear policy about what to do about old sins successfully covered up.
Either have a "statute of limitations" or indicate you excommunicating solely for the ongoing cover up. If there was no ongoing cover up then leave it be. People will be extremely angry about the cover up but anyone not lied to will think the anger is unjustified. These issues are very divisive.

8) Get a detailed written summary from the accused.
You want written statement of the accused's position on every specific acts and charges. There can be a great deal of disagreement about which facts were or were not confirmed after the fact. If you can get a confession even one with lots of clauses and justifications, get it.

What repentence from a cult leader looks like

I'm taking this text from A Former Leader's Journey which is a blog written by someone who has left an shepherding type church and is now being shunned. The entire blog explores her feelings and the hurt caused by shunning and is worth reading and moreover worth passing on to answer the "why don't you just join another church" issues.

However, she does offer a sincere repentance for her former acts which furthered the cult and that is simply too valuable to too many people in too many different denomination and organizations not to republish in a way that it will be read in our much broader context. So for those of you who will never hear this from the people who abused you:

Because of all this, I need to repent and ask your forgiveness. I was wrong. I thought wrong things. I believed wrong things. I modeled wrong things. I taught wrong things. I was wrong. I have sinned against you and the others and against my grace loving, mercy giving, all powerful, all loving God.

- I repent for teaching and modeling that the “covering” of our church, my leadership, and our network would keep you from going into rebellion or deception.

- I took your private confidences and passed them on to the other leaders regardless of my telling you that I wouldn’t. I told myself that this was an accepted practice to gain wisdom in dealing with your situation. Now I see it was probably mostly to garner, in some twisted way, the favor of my leaders, to show my loyalty and to gain a better placement of myself in their leadership system.

- I taught, modeled and practiced tithing. I taught you that if you didn’t tithe, bad things would happen to you and/or your finances. Now I understand the fallacy of this. It is a fear tactic – and it is not of God.

- I did not stand up and speak up when I heard and saw something wrong being taught, lived, or modeled. In this way, you, as people who respected me had neither voice nor protection. There were many times I should have spoken up gently/humbly to correct other leaders around me. I wrongly felt that it was up to God to correct and deal with them. That it was not my “place” to correct “God’s Anointed.”

- I wanted to be seen by leaders as loyal and mostly I wanted to be in what I perceived as one of the “inner circles of friendship.” I bought their friendship with flattering words, serving them unconditionally, not making waves, not challenging them and being disloyal to what I sometimes knew was wrong. I was a religious whore.

- I taught you that with leaders, you did not have the right to expect friendship or any sort of loyalty back. I told you that you should become what I had become, completely a servant. They owed you and me nothing. I have learned to watch out for “friendships” where I am the servant only. I have learned my “servanthood” was nothing more than trying to manipulate myself into prominence.

- I taught that the church was an Army and that we therefore needed Generals and Sergeants to lead us. (I of course saw myself as the sergeant – not the head but certainly one of the right arms of the head.) Again, I did not read my Bible.

- I taught you to despise other churches in our city. I taught you that they were not as enlightened as us, did not have as much of the Holy Spirit as us, could not worship as we did, did not recognize the leadership in our church and come under their apostolic leadership, and so many other things. I hinted at their pastors “weaknesses.” I judged their programs, people, leaders and lives as unfit for the true expression of the Kingdom of God and taught you to do the same. It is true that I did see many legitimate problems, and I still do but I had pulled back and decided I was done with the all but the select body of Christ in our area and encouraged you to also “not waste your time.”

- I practiced and taught you “shunning.” This is the practice of not associating with those who have left our body. I taught you to look the other way in the grocery store. To ignore their emails and be succinct and distant when they called you. I taught you that you could be contaminated by a perceived friendship with them, and instilled in you the fear that was in me, that I would be seen as disloyal.

- I taught you that when people left our body, they left their destiny. I thought that the only way they were to fulfill what God had for them was through our particular church.

- I encouraged you in total obedience to our leaders and total submission of ministry to their vision. I often referred to the church as being in the leaders’ “boat.” We were to totally get in this “boat” and leave it up to God and the leaders where and how to navigate this life. We were not to question this boat leader’s vision or direction as they were “hearing from God”. If you wanted to minister it had to be under their direct “umbrella.”

My pride, arrogance, manipulation and disregard for the scripture are detestable to me. In that I was your leader, role model, and teacher makes it doubly serious. I know of nothing else than to remove myself.

I am not beating myself up as to the point where I imagine that I did nothing right. There were many of you that I loved unconditionally. We showed hospitality, we modeled a good marriage, an open and honest life and when I needed to, I have asked your forgiveness. But the scope and magnitude which I see my own heart today is detestable to me.

So today, I ask your forgiveness. I know many of you were not directly under my leadership. So why do I ask your forgiveness? This is why. - Maybe in reading my “confession” you will come to realize that those in leadership above you who have inflicted so many hurts will someday come to realize what they have done. Maybe your prayers for them will result in them walking out of their own deception. Maybe the grace that you show to them will be a signpost for them to follow. Maybe in not hating them you will be able to love and pray for their blinders to fall off.From my heart to you, I am so sorry, please forgive me. And please forgive those who also have been your leaders.

A Person Formerly Known As Your Leader

How to leave a church

While many churches have a clear notion of leaving the church others don't really recognize this. Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses can have problems leaving a church without being excommunicated (disfellowshipped). Some conservative Presbyterians are moving towards "covenantial membership". Catholics can have trouble leaving under any circumstances. The purpose of this blog post is to walk through the process of quitting a church. If a discipline process is underway you may want to examine (How to Survive Discipline series in particular there is overlap with How to Survive Discipline -- Resign quietly (part 7) ).

The first question is whether you really want a transfer rather than to sever your membership. Most churches have transfer processes, and most churches will be amenable to a transfer process. A transfer is going to cause a lot less anger and resentment. You will also most like not burn your bridges. Almost all churches have rules for conducting a transfer and it is many times not looked on as harshly. Note, however that many churches will not issue a letter for someone starting the disciplinary process unless you are willing to have them cite the problems. Sometimes an unethical pastors will start a process so as to avoid the rules regarding transfer. Such a pastor is likely to be a problem regardless of how you leave, so the important thing is to keep good records. If either is the case make sure that the receiving pastor is aware of the disciplinary process. Coordinate your actions with the receiving pastor if possible.

If the receiving congregation is not seen as "of like faith and practice" a member can request a certificate of standing rather than transfer. That is you aren't asking the congregation that you are leaving to approve of the move but rather to simply certify your current status. (i.e. they are certifying you were a member in good standing prior to your desire to join a "bad church"), This is also more friendly and cooperative then simply leaving. The act of going through this process reduces the bridge burning problems and in general members probably should try and go through the transfer process. In summary:

1. Find out what your church's transfer process is.
   
2. If you need to transfer to a specific congregation, inform the pastor (and hand him a written document) that you are initiating a transfer process and will be "shopping" for an alternate church.
   
3. Once you have a specific congregation:
   
   1. Ask for a letter of transfer.
   2. If they refuse because "the other congregation is not godly" ask for a certificate of standing
   3. If they still want to get you involved in a long drawn out process then it is time to simply terminate membership.
4. Join your new church.

In this rest of this I'm going to be assuming that a letter of transfer (under practical conditions) would be or has been denied. That is you wish to terminate membership in your current congregation and then join the receiving congregation rather than transfer or simply terminate membership and not have a receiving congregation (which may for your church constitute apostasy).

The key here is to make clear your intention and leave behind a paper trail. Church discipline is dependent upon informed consent. Your goal here is to be withdrawing consent. Words like:

• Termination of membership
• Disaffiliation
• Withdraw of consent

Are absolutely key. If possible try and use all 3 terms.
The Catholic church is probably the most difficult to leave so they provide an excellent example of a "worst case scenario". Most Catholic literature about people who leave the faith assumes one is joining a heretical or schismatic church and thus the heresy or schism in itself constitutes an excommunication. However it is possible to leave the church voluntarily without specifically joining another (which would be the closest equivalent of erasure or "renouncement of jurisdiction" in presbyterianism). The process here requires an assertion of understanding: that is they have required that a person must (APCAM)

1. Perform an act to indicate they wish to separate (mere thought is not enough).
2. The act must be persistent that is it must take place over a long period of time, in particular it can't be a single event.
3. The person must be contumacious that is they must be firm in their conviction and not express hesitation.
4. They must be aware that their acts lead to an end of their membership (excommunication, erasure...) That is they must be aware of what they are requesting.
5. Finally they must actually be a member. The church cannot expel non members (the pope is exempted from this).

If you are intend to leave a church making sure you qualify for all of these 5 criteria will be key. Most churches do hold that the above list is sufficient to terminate membership. Note however in the above list how important it is to use strong language regarding your status. Weak language indicates a lack of awareness and a lack of contumacy.

For a Presbyterian example the Orthodox Church's Book of Discipline is quite clear on how one severs their relationship.

When a member of a particular church, whether or not he be charged with an offense, informs the session that he does not desire to remain in the fellowship of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the efforts of the session to dissuade him from his course have failed, it shall erase his name from the roll and record the circumstances in its minutes, unless the session institutes or continues other disciplinary action against him.

One act that meets all of the criteria is for you to issue a letter of disassociation. A letter of disassociation has a few key parts.

1. Formal statement of disassociation, terminating your membership.
   
2. A brief history of your introduction to the church and your positive impressions
   
3. A discussion of "major issues" that forced you to disassociate. This part can be grouped by related topics, such as "Doctrinal", "Personal", "Social", "Organizational" and so on.
4. An explicit list of requests (e.g. "Don't do follow-up calls", "Don't try to shepherd my children"). If you have no specific requests, you can leave this part out. This is the withdrawal of consent.
   
5. Conclusion. (e.g. wish them well on their quest to find meaning, and assure them that you are pleased to have made your decision to broaden your search for truth).

The formal statement is simply statement indicating you are no longer a member. They look something like:

• I hereby renounce all claim to membership in church XYZ.
• It is with great reluctance that I am forced to resign my membership from church XYZ
• Many hundreds of hours and over seven hundred compiled scriptures later, my clear conscience will no longer allow me to uphold the convictions common among (name of denomination)

This has to appear somewhere in the letter to make it clear that you no longer consider yourself a member. This can appear anywhere but its the most important part. If you signed some sort of church covenant agreeing that you can't leave you want to explicitly acknowledge signing it and renounce it here, "including in this renunciation of membership is renouncing the contents of the church covenant I signed on March 13, 2001". Religious freedom is a civil right not a contractual right, you cannot sign away your right to leave a church. The covenant is in effect only as long as you want it to be.

The second part is important for explaining your reasons for membership. Because it occurs in the letter you are acknowledging you were at one time a member and that this is being drawn to a close. It goes hand in hand with the 3rd section which explains why you've decided that the new information/status is causing you to leave. I.E. you are indicating the bad outweighs the good. These two sections are often far too specific to offer much advice. The key thing is (if possible) you want to include some point of disagreement with a statement that is required for membership (generally the profession of faith). By doing this, you can establish you are not merely fleeing a disciplinary procedure but no longer share their beliefs. You'll want to pick a genuine area of disagreement. So for example:

• Quiting the Mormons: I no longer believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
• Quitting a Baptist Church: I have come to believe that children are part of God's covenant and should be baptized at birth.
  
• Quitting Soka Gakkai: I no longer believe that chanting the Gongyō will bring benefit to my life.

If doesn't have to be that fundamental it could be much more minor proving its a part of the creed:

• Quitting Baptist church: Our profession of faith requires assent to the Nicean creed, however I no longer believe that Jesus is of one essence with the Father.
  
• Quitting the Mormons: I no longer believe in the gift of tongues

If there is no areas of theological or ritual dispute that you can mention inform them that you agree you are engaged in an out of process erasure and they are free to record it as such.

After this the next step is to establish how you want the church to treat you as an x-member. This is where you can make explicit your request that oversight of you (including discipline) halt. This is where you can indicate what the contents of the announcement should be, for example you may (and probably should) indicate that this letter is public and they may read it in full and show it to people if they feel the need to make an announcement. For organizations that tend to be resistant to allowing you to leave you may need to be a bit harsh. However nothing more than something like:

Since I have voluntarily resigned from the organization, and are therefore no longer a Jehovah's Witness, I expressly prohibit you from disfellowshipping me or in any way defaming my character before others. If I am disfellowshipped or am slandered in any way, I will have to take legal action against you.

Or

I have prayerfully considered the vow I made. Jesus said "My yoke is light." I am casting off the burden I have been under for so many years while under the scrutiny of the man made organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In full faculty I am stating that I am disassociating from that organization. I no longer want to be recognized as a Jehovah's Witness because it does not fill the expectations I was led to believe.

(1) I do not want my family to contacted or coerced in any way.
(2) At my death I do not wish to be remembered as a Jehovah's Witness.
(3) There is no need for prayers or further attempt to reverse my decision.
(4) When the Congregation makes an announcement it should be an announcement of disassociation not apostasy

Finally the conclusion. Again this should be friendly if possible. A thanks for good times, a statement of best wishes or blessing on current members... are all appropriate.

some samples: Gloria Muscarell, Juliann Velasquez, Melissa C. Thiring, Mormon no more sample

Now go on and do what you want. At this point you are no longer a member according to any Christian tradition. Legally you have withdrawn your consent and you have a much greater degree of legal protection against defamation and harassment. Congratulations, its over!

There is for some poeple a tricky part. Convincing yourself that you aren't damned or evil or fallen for wanting to leave. David Rattigan wrote a terrific article about the issues and fears you are likely to face. You may even want to join (or at least read) a group for people leaving whatever faith you are leaving. This blog maintains a leaving list of support groups.

United Church of Christ

For people reading this blog who have been excommunicated you may want to consider Barak Obama's denomination. They focus very heavily on being inclusive. They have commercials like the 4 below, and slogans like

• We don't sing "come some ye faithful"
• "If Jesus embraced Lepers, Prostitutes, & Convicts, shouldn't we?"
• "Our faith is over 2000 years old. Our thinking is not."

Winter 2000 SBTS

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary dedicated their Winter 2000 issue to Church discipline.

• Editorial: Thomas R. Schreiner Loving Discipline
• Gregory A. Wills Southern Baptists and Church Discipline
• R. Albert Mohler Jr. Church Discipline: The Missing Mark
• Mark Dever Biblical Church Discipline
• Don Cox The Forgotten Side of Church Discipline
• Wayne House Church Discipline and the Courts
• Sermon: Hershael York The Compassion of Confrontation
• The SBJT Forum Perspectives on Church Discipline
• Book Reviews

How to Survive Discipline: Force a more specific charge (Part 10)

This is a complex defense that will work on most vague charges (particularly lifestyle ones). The idea is to force the church to

1. Argue that a "lifestyle" or inclination even if the specific acts have not occurred is sinful or
   
2. Prove that specific acts occurred

The idea is to essentially defeat common sense. That is raise the standard of proof so that the prosecution needs to show a specific act in fact occurred. For example assume an unmarried couple live together. The church wants to discipline them for fornication. Force them to prove that fornication is in fact occurring. I mean obviously there is good reason to suspect that the unmarried couple is having sex, but most likely they can't actually prove it.

The key to this defense is that you are not obligated to make "statements against interest". You never lie, you simple indicate the prosecution is obligated to prove grounds for their case. In are fornication example, a specific act of fornication at a specific time not a general suspicion of fornication. Churches with a strong judicial history will not excommunicate for refusing to make statement against interest, and if you come from a catholic or presbyterian tradition make sure to quote these references. Those with a weak one may consider it, but this is America people are going to be mighty reluctant to convict just because you "plead the 5th". If you are to be excommunicated make sure its for refusing to make statements against interest not for the specific charge. You should understand however that you will be under intense pressure to make such statements; the philosophy of most churches is masochistic arguing you should welcome their authority. Expect arguments like: "You aren't submitting to biblical authority", "this isn't a court you can't refuse to confirm or deny facts"... the point is to make your stand here not on the issue. Ultimately this defense is going to hinge on the fact that the bible supports a despotic form of government while Americans tend to believe in a democratic form. You are unlikely to be excommunicated for things that most people believe are your within your rights (like refusing to plead).

A more complex example of this working is homosexuality. In general churches that excommunicate homosexuals have one of two beliefs. The first view is that homosexuality is a sin in and of itself. That is it is a perversion born of sin, like drug addition alcoholism or a gambling addiction. A person is a homosexual because they have cultivated a taste for perversion. The second view is that homosexuality itself is not sinful. Specific sex acts (like "topping" during anal sex) are sinful.

1. Force the church to come down clearly on one side or the other. In general most churches in today's world will be very reluctant to openly take the first position. They by in large believe it, but they won't admit to believing it as it so politically incorrect.
   
2. If they argue the first case make them prove the process of cultivation and perversion. That is make them prove the pattern of acts leading to the inclination
3. If they argue the second case force them to prove a specific act with a specific person at a specific time.
   

Larry is a 17 year old boy whose mother caught him with gay porn. Larry is brought before the pastor who argues that Larry needs to undergo transitioning to deal with sinful, homosexual impulses. Larry has no desire to undergo a brainwashing procedure with a one of three chance of success and a virtual certainty of serious psychological damage and harm. On the other hand he doesn't want to lie. He also doesn't want to be excommunicated.
So the first step for Larry is to declare that while he is sexual excited by men he is not a homosexual. He is in fact still a virgin, has never engaged in any sort of extreme sexual behavior and believes himself to simply be sexual immature perhaps developing a bit late. He won't know for a few more years. He also repents for masturbation.
The pastor now is on the spot. If he declares that a sexual taste for men can develop in the absence of sin then the homosexual inclination is in itself not sinful and thus Larry can't be excommunicated for it. Larry doesn't have a positive obligation to go to Exodus, he's not required to change. The pastor can't prove sex acts (because there aren't any serious ones) and Larry is willing to repent of any petting or whatever he's engaged in.
If on the other hand the pastor isn't willing to agree, he's going to need to prove how Larry cultivated a taste for perversion. That is is the pastor will need to show how Larry choose to develop these abnormal tastes. That's an impossible task.
Either way Larry doesn't get excommunicated while refusing to go to Exodus.

How to Survive Discipline -- Resign quietly (part 7)

For many people the goal is not stay in the church but rather to avoid public disclosure of some sin or event the church believes occurred. The goal may also be to avoid formal excommunication. If you aren't sure if your church will allow you to transfer or resign to avoid excommunication you can ask. Meet with the pastor and ask if you can coordinate a quiet withdrawal / transfer from the church. Again most churches are not that interested in discipling someone who is leaving.

They may refuse to be quiet feeling that your new pastor needs to know about the problem. If your have a new church and your new pastor already knows you can ask for a "letter of transfer" to the new church. Note however that many churches will not issue a letter for someone starting the disciplinary process unless you are willing to have the cite the problems. In this case most church will be amenable to the letter of transfer. Further be forewarned that even if the letter says nothing your old pastor may feel that your new pastor needs to know about any issues so as the transfer progresses they will be informed.

If a letter of transfer is not an option then the next possibility is for you to issue a letter of disassociation. This is a much more serious matter since for most churches a letter of disassociation is considered a disciplinary act and they will record a "black mark" next to your name.
A letter of disassociation has a few key parts.

1. Formal statement of disassociation.
2. A brief history of your introduction to the church and your positive impressions
3. A discussion of "major issues" that forced you to disassociate. This part can be grouped by related topics, such as "Doctrinal", "Personal", "Social", "Organizational" and so on.
4. An explicit list of requests (e.g. "Don't do follow-up calls", "Don't try to shepherd my children"). If you have no specific requests, you can leave this part out.
5. Conclusion. (e.g. wish them well on their quest to find meaning, and assure them that you are pleased to have made your decision to broaden your search for truth).

The formal statement is simply statement indicating you are no longer a member. They look something like:

• I hereby renounce all claim to membership in church XYZ.
• It is with great reluctance that I am forced to resign my membership from church XYZ
• Many hundreds of hours and over seven hundred compiled scriptures later, my clear conscience will no longer allow me to uphold the convictions common among (name of denomination)

This has to appear somewhere in the letter to make it clear that you no longer consider yourself a member. This can appear anywhere but its the most important part. The second part is important for explaining your reasons for membership. Because it occurs in the letter you are acknowledging you were at one time a member and that this is being drawn to a close. It goes hand in hand with the 3rd section which explains why you've decided that the new information/status is causing you to leave. I.E. you are indicating the bad outweighs the good. These two sections are often far too specific to offer much advice. The key thing is (if possible) you want to include some point of disagreement with a statement that is required for membership (generally the profession of faith). By doing this, you establish you are not merely fleeing a disciplinary procedure but no longer share their beliefs. You'll want to pick a genunine area of disagreement. So for example:

• Quiting the Mormons: I no longer believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet or that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
• Quitting a Baptist Church: I have come to believe that children are part of God's covenant and should be baptized at birth.
  
• Quitting Soka Gakkai: I no longer believe that chanting the Gongyō will bring benefit to my life.

If doesn't have to be that fundamental it could be much more minor proving its a part of the creed:

• Quitting Baptist church: Our profession of faith requires assent to the Nicean creed, however I no longer believe that Jesus is of one essence with the Father.
  
• Quitting the Mormons: I no longer believe in the gift of tongues

After this the next step is to establish how you want the church to treat you as an x-member. This is where you can make explicit your request that discipline halt. This part can sometimes be harsh. You need to be explicit.

Since I have voluntarily resigned from the organization, and are therefore no longer a Jehovah's Witness, I expressly prohibit you from disfellowshipping me or in any way defaming my character before others. If I am disfellowshipped or am slandered in any way, I will have to take legal action against you.

Or

I have prayerfully considered the vow I made. Jesus said "My yoke is light." I am casting off the burden I have been under for so many years while under the scrutiny of the man made organization, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. In full faculty I am stating that I am disassociating from that organization. I no longer want to be recognized as a Jehovah's Witness because it does not fill the expectations I was led to believe.

(1) I do not want my family to contacted or coerced in any way.
(2) At my death I do not wish to be remembered as a Jehovah's Witness.
(3) There is no need for prayers or further attempt to reverse my decision.
(4) When the Congregation makes an announcement it should be an announcement of disassociation not apostasy

Finally the conclusion. Again this should be friendly if possible

some samples: Gloria Muscarell Juliann Velasquez Melissa C. Thiring

How to Survive Discipline: Flirting with a Church Your Church Hates (Part 6)

The key to this method is to appear that you find the discipline process so upsetting that you are getting ready to make major life changes other than those the church desires. We are going back to the defense layout. First off, what I mean by "a church your church hates" is a church your church considers a non-Christian cult or "heretical" a fake church.... Evangelicals, for example, would "hate" Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Uniterians. Fundamentalist churches would "hate" Catholic churches and liberal churches, but then, for them almost anything works. For liberal churches (though I'm not sure how much discipline they actually do), cults and possibly hardcore fundamentalist churches. For Jehovah's Witnesses: evangelical churches, particularly those with an interest in missions to Jehovah's Witnesses. For cults" almost anything outside the cult works. In other cases, you can figure out who the right groups are pretty easily.

It's important to pick a church your church hates primarily because otherwise the pastors are likely to have friendly relations and see things the same way. If you make a minor change, like Orthodox Presbyterian to Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, you'll have two pastors who work together or at least see eye to eye on most issues. The natural tendency is for them to work together to "resolve your problem". You need to go to a pastor with whom your own pastor would never consider cooperating.

Discipline serves three purposes.

1. To try and bring the member to repentance for their sin
2. To help the church by keeping it godly
3. To serve as a witness to the world

Flirting with a church your church hates undermines the whole discipline process. It would be like getting a new live-in girlfriend a week before a separation. First off, you are demonstrating you have a direction to go if you are excommunicated. You are developing an alternate source of emotional support. The purpose of the discipline process is to induce crisis by isolating you. That can't happen if you are busy going through the process of joining a new church. Second, since your church hates the other church, they are going to view joining it as apostasy. Apostasy is seen as a very serious sin. Your pastor doesn't want to induce apostasy.

This also undermines your church. It identifies itself as being "better" than the hated church. What would happen if the hated church brings you to repentance where your original church had failed? This, by the way, is not uncommon. Discipline processes are frequently successful in a new church where they were or would have been dismal failures in the old church. The new church doesn't have psychological and political baggage to work through, so it can address problems directly.

Let's take an example. Jill is a 17-year-old girl and a Jehovah's Witness who gets pregnant. Jay, her steady boyfriend, will not admit to being the father because he's terrified of admitting to fornication. Jill does not want to alienate the father of her baby. She knows Jay is going to be part of her life for years to come and "turning him in" would be destructive. She refuses to name the father and she hopes he comes forward when the baby is born.
Jill's pastor wants Jay confronted and says that Jill has not fully repented since she is still covering up details. He starts a disciplinary process to excommunicate Jill for unrepentant fornication since he can't prove anything regarding Jay until Jill cracks. Jill is miserable, so she starts going to the Catholic church. She also gives a full confession to the priest (who is bound by an oath not to talk). As the elders confront her, Jill bursts into tears and talks about how she can't find any solace in Kingdom Hall anymore and she goes to Our Lady of Chastity for peace. She tells them she made a full confession to Father Brown, and when asked why she talked to him, she responds that she just doesn't feel comfortable anymore talking to any of her elders because of the pressure. She makes sure to leave a brochure for Good Counsel Homes (Catholic Crisis pregnancy home) in her room and in plain sight. She also takes to carrying a rosary. Pretty soon everyone comes to believe she is cracking and the pressure disappears.

Notice that Jill never threatens and she seems emotional. She not rationally choosing to leave the Witnesses. She's just having trouble dealing all the pressure. She would like to stay part of the JW but she might fall away if they keep it up. She talks about how people aren't really listening, how they are just judging...how all she is looking for are people who really care about her...how hurt she is by all the cruelty...how the only time she can talk to Jesus anymore is when she has the peace and love of (hated church). She's just too upset to even try and pray in her current church.

There is one major downside to this method. If it doesn't work, it can speed up an excommunication. However, it's one of the few methods for staying in a church where submission is impossible. It also has the nice effect of starting the separation process in advance, thus making the separation, if it happens, less painful. Moreover, you may find yourself much happier with a type of congregation you never would have considered. It might be that you don't want to be a member of SPPV but really want to be a liberal Protestant, or don't want to be fundamentalist Independent Baptist and really do like the Jehovah's Witnesses more.

How to Survive Discipline -- Contest Jurisdiction (part 8)

We are moving out of methods designed to keep you in the church and into methods designed to let you leave on your own terms. Contesting jurisdiction is a classic here. Its also one of the most effective. Everything is lined up in your corner. The whole design of the excommunication process is try and get an unrepentant members of the church to either repent or be cast out. The church is ready to fight a battle on whether you are repentant or not. They aren't prepared for a battle on whether you are a member or not.

First off, most churches are perfectly happy to have you leave gracefully. The have no intention of disciplining or continuing the discipline process on someone who wants to leave. Particularly if you agree to coordinate their leaving with the elders and pastor and clean up any other unfinished business they are often quite anxious to make it amicable. Understand in advance if it is possible for you to leave gracefully. If it is and you like this method you are done. Unless you have reason to believe otherwise this is an area worth exploring. The big issue you are likely to encounter is that are going to feel they are leading you into sin by giving you permission to leave. Make it clear you intend to leave and that the only question is over terms. For most churches that's the end of it.

However some churches have very strong rules about fleeing while under discipline. Others consider leaving to be a serious offense anyway. For example many churches have explicit statements to that effect regarding terminating membership can not be done while under discipline. Others like the OPC assert that only the session can release you a member cannot quit. These sorts of churches will either convict you in your absence (for failure to appear) or even try you in absentia and you end up being excommunicated and they will sully you name.

OK so what to do. First off understand that they are absolutely in the wrong. 2000 years of church history teach that apostates can be punished for apostasy, they cannot be tried by a church court. A church court is something that is voluntary. You have an absolute right to flee. Moreover US law is clear here. Church discipline is legally protected under the free exercise clause because churches are voluntary associations. When they cease to be voluntery their rules become subject to secular court review. The Jehovah's witnesses used to consider anyone who quit the witnesses "disfellowshipped". They got their head handed legally for excommunicating non members. So they've invented another term for people who leave called "disassociated". Many conservative protestant churches don't have national organizations or if they do they haven't done enough volume of member discipline and don't quite understood the complications here. But they moment they consult with an attorney they will.

The next thing to understand is that the prosecution is going try and get you off message and address your "sin". Do not let them. There is one issue under discussion are you a member and subject to their authority

E - Joey I know that Sam has talked to you about this. Mixed dancing is a sin, if you don't stop going to mixed dances were are going to excommunicate you
J - Mr. Brown, I'm not a member here, I just started attending during college
E - You've been going here every Sunday for 3 years you are a member.
J - No I'm a member of Sun Valley Baptist back at home. I never agreed to membership here, I never signed the card or met with the session. I just show up regularly.
E - Joey you need to be under someone's oversight
J - I'm under the oversight of Sun Valley Baptist I just regularly attend here. I can stop attending if you want.
E - No we want to help you realize your errors and bring you to repentance, you are sinning.
J - That would be a good thing for one of my elders to do, but since you aren't one of my elders I don't think its appropriate to discuss my spiritual state in an atmosphere of authority with you.
E - Joey are you saved?
J - Yes. I have a covenanting relationship with Jesus just not with this church.

Joey never ever starts discussing the issue. He keeps the focus on membership. The moment he starts treating Brown like an elder his legal protection is gone until he explicitly quits. If you waver you lose, you must be sure before you go down this road. If you are going to use this method make it absolutely explicit your just some guy showing up at the church. If you can stomach it even better would be saying you are showing up because you had nothing better to do on a Sunday. The final question is a good one. It shows the Elder no longer is sure that he has authority. Joey's answer is also good.

So how do you contest jurisdiction? This is the possibilities in order of preference.

1. You were never a member
2. You were a member but you resigned some time in the past
3. You thought you were a member but were mistaken
   
4. You were a member and are now resigning in spite of the "no resigning rules".
   

#1 is far and away the easiest.

• At least legally the burden of proof will be on them. Moreover most religious organizations believe in voluntary membership and so their own organizations will place the burden of proof will be on them that they need to prove membership before discipline can occur.
  
• The minister is going to have to vindicative jerk to spend hours developing a chain of evidence that you a member just so that he can excommunicate you.
  

Understand though that once you agree you aren't a member the pastor or an elder can eliminate your right to attend ("toss you out") fairly freely. You avoid the actual act of excommunication but you might not be able to attend services or participate in activities. To pull #1 you'll need some reason to assert you were never a member. For example if you were child raised in the church and never made a profession of faith (or it was ambigious). If your wife or husbands signed the membership card and you didn't. If your never validly transferred (for example you were an associate member and then just started attending regularly). You can often assert that you were a regular attendy and not a member.

#2 is good one for churches that are going after college age kids. One of the really nasty things that has been going on is for churches to excommunicate kids who have moved away, and haven't gotten involved in an approved faith. However many of these churches have rules regarding transfer for moving and time limits that are in effect. Arguing that a transfer occurred was not properly documented is an excellent way to contest jurisdiction. Quite simply the church would then have to argue that it is capable of providing oversight to someone living hundreds if not thousands of miles away.
For Presbyterians we can be more specific. They have a notion of "associate member", and the assumption would be that a kid in college is an associate member of his college congregation unless he transfers. However if he were to claim that he transfered but failed to do so properly and then repents for failure to transfer properly the old congregation is going to have jurisdiction problems in trying the case. Even better if had made statements to people about "his church" meaning his college church thus proving he identified himself as having transfered.

#3 Trying someone who has renounced their baptism has been a sin so serious that it was grounds for excommunication. The inquisition wouldn't even do it. A protestant renunciation of baptism would be something of the form "I don't think I'm saved", or "I'm not a Christian" or "I don't believe I was born again". If a statement doesn't end the trial ask the minister point black if he intends try someone who had denied/renounced their baptism in a church court.

#4 This is often quite complicated. Essentially you are creating a gap between what a church is allowed to do based on tradition and law and what they want to do. I've addressed the process in a later post.






homosexual example

How to Survive Discipline -- Introduction (part 1)

You've just been charged with something or the elders are coming to you with something that had been a private offense. This one a big deal for some reason, you can't just admit say you are sorry and move quickly. The first things you need to understand is that

1. Guilt or innocence really doesn't make a big difference. The church doesn't have access to an investigative body. The only things that really are going to matter are if the leadership wants to find you guilty and what you say. Further churches are highly authoritarian structures that punish non conformity, while they can't admit to it viciously punishing an innocent person is probably more in their interests (that is it terrifies the other members) more than doing it to a guilty person.
   
2. Your relationship with the church is unavoidably damaged. The good days are over. In trying to establish goals you are going to figure out what to do from here. But holding on to the past is going to do nothing but hurt you. Accept the fact that things are going to be bad for you. You will never (or at least for a long time) be trusted or esteemed the same way again.
3. Church courts work on your conscience and they are very effective.
   

What the rest of this study is going to present is a strategy for the defense. Its designed to help you think through your options and weigh the plusses and minuses. It presents all the options pragmatically. The goal is

1. to provide a "how-to" guide
   
2. as well as help you to think of options you may not have
3. help you consider plusses and minuses

If you still believe in "let go and let god" then you will hate this guide. On the other hand if you believe that trusting god to drive your life is not much different than letting go of the stearing wheel in your car and seeing how well god drives you'll hopefully got a lot out of this. Either way let me know and feel free to comment and discuss

The basic structure is to first decide on a goal, then:

Methods that allow you to remain in the church

• Submission
• Utter denial
• Pleading to a lesser charge
• Make the charges more specific
  
• Flirting with a church your church hates
  
• Complicating the case
  

Methods that allow you to join another church

• Challenging jurisdiction
• Resigning
  
• Stalling & utter denial
  

Methods that avoid civil repercussions

• Resigning
  
• Threats

Protestant ministers are discussing a full blown move back to church discipline. The membership needs an honest handbook that serves their interests.

How to Survive Discipline -- Plead to a lesser charge and repent (part 5)

Again this is similar to utter denial but likely to work better. Because the church investigators aren't professional investigators they are likely to do a bad job. They are also going to be satisfied with a full confession to a lesser charge and repentance. Often the problem is that the repentance means a public confession, and the specific things that needs to be confessed would be damaging. By pleading to a lesser charge you can go through the processes without taking the hit. To avoid making it sound like you are justifying your sin make sure to condemn it in even harsher terms.

Sam is going through a very rough patch in his marriage. He doesn't want to get divorced. He's been visiting a prostitute regularly and gets seen by several people leaving her place. They start the confrontation process. Regardless of what he does in terms of discipline this is getting back to his wife. The church (and his wife) consider adultery grounds for divorce and she'll divorce him. So what Sam does it make it seem like he was there for something that is perverse and his wife wouldn't do. Sam immediately confesses and repents for immorality and indecency but strongly denies adultery. If further questions are asked he demands to talk to one of the elders in private. He then admits to that elder something very embarrassing but that falls short of adultery (like maybe he was having her pee on him while he jerked off, or she paraded around in a variety of very high heels and then let him suck her toes....). The elder believes him (I mean after all who make up that stuff), his wife gets told he is struggling with lust issues but has not committed adultery, they get the counseling they need and life gets better for both of them.

To see a historical example of this defense Anne Le Fert.

How to Survive Discipline -- Utter Denial (part 4)

The disciplinary process has essentially 5 steps from an evidence perspective

1. An individual confronts you
2. Several individuals confront (a confrontation in front of witnesses)
   
3. It goes to the elders who investigate (or trial)
   
4. Conviction
   
5. Church call for repentance / excommunication

Denial is very effective on steps beyond the 1st step, and this makes it very tempting. The biblical standard for evidence is several witnesses. Most likely the prosecution doesn't have that. If push comes to shove they aren't going to be able to prove their case and they are unlikely to convict without evidence. Further, the conviction without evidence is unlikely to be taken seriously by anyone else and thus community support for discipline will be lacking.

This strategy does have a major negative. It raises suspicions and diminishes trust tremendously. Further if you do get caught for the same act after having denied they are going to throw the book at you. Moreover because they think you got away with something, they are going to try harder to catch you and when they do the consequences will increases. This leads to a large increase in fear for you as a member, and that's going to cause emotion disfellowship. For this reason, really should be considered part of "stall" rather than a solution. Think about Nixon and Clinton, it wasn't the crime as the cover up.

If you deny the charges utterly make sure that at least one of the below is true:

1. You can prove your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt or
   
2. You start laying the ground work for changing churches.
3. You understand they are really going to nail you on the next thing you did do.
4. You are mainly trying to prevent civil harm and don't care very much about your church relationship
   

This strategy while often the one used, tends not to be very tempting, but really is useful only in the limited cases above.

Lets look at 2 cases:
Stuart Jones book (see walk throughs) gives the example of a man who is looking for his nephew during the sabbath on behalf of his brother at a football game. He is charged with sabbath breaking and because the only defense witnesses was a close relative (the brother) and the offense was public he is sentenced to excommunication (he ends up winning the appeal on a technicality btw). Lets assume for a moment he lacked the nephew excuse. In the story there is only witnesses and that witness only saw his car. Total denial "No I wasn't at the game and neither was my car" or "oh I was ill, my cousin had my car" would have killed the prosecution's case dead.

How to Survive Discipline -- Decide on a goal (part 2)

Right now you are probably very upset. You've been accused of wrong doing and the people doing it are planning on escalating to elders (or you've already been talked to by the elders). This is going to really unpleasant for you. The first thing to figure out is to calmly and rationally decide what are your goals.

Start with why you joined a right wing church, the kind of church that practices discipline in the first place. Was it because you grew up there? Was it because you really do believe in what they believe? Was it because the preacher is talented? Do you still believe what they believe?

To be a bit more religious for a second, Augustine talks about two types of sins those of the animal self (like lust) and those of the demonic self (like pride). By and large the sins that people get into serious trouble for and won't repent are lifestyle sins (those of the animal self). Utilizing weaknesses in church structure so as to circumvent their processes falls under the 2nd category. Make sure you are going to be able to sleep after you do it.

What do you want to have happen at the end of this? Would be OK with getting out without getting excommunicated? Do you want to go on doing what you are doing while remaining a member in good standing? Do you want to transfer to another type of church all together? Does you church practice shunning and could that cost you your family, job and/or close friends? Maybe you are gay and you know there is no way you can change that.

Do you not care about the church related issues at all, but are more concerned with other issues. Like rumors of this sin getting out could cost you your marriage, your job, your freedome, you love of your children, or respect you've spent a lifetime earning? That is operating in survival mode and right now the church is just a threat to your well being.

Think carefully what your goals are. This series is going to focus on how to abuse the process to achieve those goals. You need to be clear in your own mind what you are trying to accomplish or you'll get lost in your own web of deceit.

You'll always need to have a clear "why" you aren't going with the process (unless you choose submission which is part 3).

1. You don't agree with the church's teachings
2. Don't really want to be part of the church anymore, anyway and this is just the catalyst
   
3. The pastor / elders that is you would like counseling on helping this problem but not by them.
   
1. They are basically evil or controlling and you don't trust them
2. They tend to use counseling opportunities to server their own interests
3. Their methods will make the consequence too great. For example Marc Driscoll has a policy of reporting sexual issues to spouses and criminal issues to the police. Someone who believes that Christian counseling must be concerned with "justice" you could view as simply unsafe as a counselor.
   

Once you are clear your mind about the "why you are doing this" and the "what you want to accomplish" then start examining the various techniques.