Religious change terminology

Ryan Cragun has written an interesting dictionary for religious change (source).  Since this is embedded in a pdf here are the highlights broken out:

exiter any person who leaves a religion

• disaffiliate a person who leaves a religion by formally requesting their name be removed from the membership roles of the religion
• disidentifier a person who leaves a religion by no longer self-identifying as a member of the religion
• apostate a person who leaves a religion and then fights against that religion
• deserter a person who leaves a religion with no intention of returning

switcher a person who leaves a religion and joins another religion

• within family switcher someone who leaves a religion and joins a religion that belongs to the same broad religious family (e.g., Methodist to Baptist)
• between family switcher a person who leaves a religion and joins a religion that belongs to a different broad religious family (e.g., Catholic to Buddhist)
• taster a person who repetitively joins and leaves religions
• defector a person who leaves a religion with the intent of joining a rival group

convert anyone who experiences a change in religious identity

• deconvert a person who leaves a religion

none a person who does not associate with a religion

• re-none a person who leaves a religion and becomes a religious none
• native none a person raised without a religious identity who has not joined a religion
• religious independent a person with no religious affiliation
• dropout a person who leaves a religion and becomes a religious none
• unchurched a person raised without a religious affiliation who has never joined one

identifier a person who self-identifies as being associated with an organized religion

• affiliate a person who claims formal membership status in an organized religion
• stayer a person who was raised with a religious affiliation and remains religiously affiliated later in life, regardless of any changes in affiliation.
• loyalist a person raised with a specific religious affiliation who maintains that affiliation later in life. 

The pluses and minus of cohesion in church groups

Icy mountain posted an article on group dynamics that he wanted to discuss. It outlines the advantages and disadvantages of making groups cohesive.

Essentially increase cohesion and:

1. Members enjoy the group more
2. Output per individual is higher
3. The group has an easier time achieving goals

On the other hand you also get much more group think including higher levels of self censorship and scapegoating of deviants.

Needless to say this is a good fit for the blog in terms of how discipline operates. This thread is mainly an open forum on what level of cohesion is desirable. So I'll throw it open how cohesive do you think churches should be and what about small church groups?

Why not to keep going on with discipline after a member leaves

The discussion on the blogs regard Rebecca Hancock has been about the right of the member to leave a church. But I think a more general discussion is called for. Why is a bad idea to continue church discipline on non members?

First off it is violation of domestic law. Religion in American is a consensual affair at all times not permanent contract. A person's relationship with a religion ends the moment they say it ends. It is a violation of first amendment rights to assert religious authority over someone without their consent. Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville is an important case where the courts were definitive, "No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts." A similar case involving a Mormon was Norman Hancock, with the same result the Hancock was awarded damanges as the court saw continuing a disciplinary process on a non member to be a violation of their civil rights.

Permanent church covenants or statements that discipline will continue after a person tries to leave in no way alter any of the above. They are useful for establishing informed consent to starting a disciplinary process, and continuing it while someone remains a member. But, the law and the courts don't consider religious practice and affiliation to be a contract but rather a civil right. You can't sign away your right to quit a church any more than you can sign away your right to sue for sexual harassment in the workplace. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology which was twice appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court was unequivocal in its finding that permanent consent cannot be granted. Consent to being disciplined, is like consent to being subjected to any other religious practice and can be revoked at will. For an older case, O'Moore v. Driscoll established that lack of consent to a ritual instantly removes privilege. In Scolinki the courts found that church discipline arises from common interest. A person voluntarily leaving the religious community has severed their common interest, which is why I frequently say that churches can excommunicate immediately or record what they want when a person leaves but not engage in an ongoing process.

Second it is a violation of international human rights law: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18).

The Organization of American States is even more explicit:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience and of religion. This right includes freedom to maintain or to change one's religion or beliefs, and freedom to profess or disseminate one's religion or beliefs, either individually or together with others, in public or in private.

2. No one shall be subject to restrictions that might impair his freedom to maintain or to change his religion or beliefs. (American Convention on Human Rights, Article 12)

Third it is a violation of religious tradition:

Every man has a right to withdraw from the Church whenever he pleases, in the sense explained in our former article -- a right in the sense that no human authority has the right to detain him. As before God, he has no more right to apostatize than to commit any other sin. He is bound to believe and keep the commandments. But men have no commission to force him to do either. If he wants to go, they must let him go. "They went out from us," says the Apostle -- not that they were expelled, but they went out of their own accord, freely, voluntarily -- "because they were not of us." They found themselves in the wrong place, and they left it. (The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol.4: Ecclesiastical, p. 370.)

To pick a Baptist quote:

Baptists have one consistent record concerning liberty throughout all their long and eventful history. They have never been a party to oppression of conscience. They have forever been the unwavering champions of liberty, both religious and civil. Their contention now, is, and has been, and, please God, must ever be, that it is the natural and fundamental and indefeasible right of every human being to worship God or not, according to the dictates of his conscience, and, as long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others, he is to be held accountable alone to God for all religious beliefs and practices. Our contention is not for mere toleration, but for absolute liberty. There is a wide difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration implies that somebody falsely claims the right to tolerate. Toleration is a concession, while liberty is a right. Toleration is a matter of expediency, while liberty is a matter of principle. Toleration is a gift from God. It is the consistent and insistent contention of our Baptist people, always and everywhere, that religion must be forever voluntary and uncoerced, and that it is not the prerogative of any power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, to compel men to conform to any religious creed or form of worship, or to pay taxes for the support of a religious organization to which they do not believe. God wants free worshipers and no other kind. (By George Truett, Southern Baptist Convention, May 16 1920).

Among Presbyterians the notion of "erasure without consent of the session" or renouncement of jurisdiction is a well established right. For example the largest Presbyterian denomination, the PC(USA) is unequivocal that, "Members, church officers, elders and ministers have the right to renounce jurisdiction at any time. " To pick from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum the Orthodox Presbyterian Church considers leaving without permission of the session to be an erasure but not an excommunication, a termination of membership (Book of Discipline II.B.3.d.1,3,5).

To appreciate the breadth and unanimity of this I'll note that Jehovah's witnesses have a similar notion with different terminology. A member who is excommunicated is called, "disfellowshiped" while one who leaves on their own is "disassociated". There is a clear understanding that the Watchtower bible and tract society cannot claim disciplinary authority over a person who no longer considers themselves a member of the society (see wikipedia for more details).

And again to indicate the breadth, a person who declares themselves to no longer be a member of the church of the latter day saints is a "disaffiliate", and not subject to a disciplinary council (which can pronounce excommunication), "Nor are [Disciplinary Councils] held for members who demand that their names be removed from Church records or who have joined another church; that is now an administrative action." (from A Chance to Start Over: Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings)

To summarize, it may be the case that the church views the status of one who voluntarily left as having excommunicated themselves, "erasure is an excommunication", or to quote Jim West, "The New Testament identifies two classes of excommunicates: first, those who have been formally sentenced by the Church of Christ (1 Corinthians 5:5). Second, those that excommunicate themselves by leaving the pale of the visible church in order to feast in the world (1 John 2:19)" (link). But the right to leave without engaging in an extended process, is guaranteed by church tradition.

Fourth, treating excommunication as more than simply leaving a church confuses excommunication and anathema. Excommunication is an involuntary separation of communion from a particular group of brethren. Anathema is a separation from God. If a person chooses to separate communion themselves then they are in some sense self excommunicating, by continuing an official process the church is asserting an authority over the status of their spirit, an authority they should not claim to possess. Pope John VIII makes this clear in the decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII), "... excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church". There is an earlier article on this site which addresses the distinction in more detail.

Fifth, it is unbiblical. Almost every passage dealing with discipline is specific to a church. For example Rev 2:20 the condemnation for the false teacher is only against the church of Thyatira and not against the church universal. 1Cor 5:12, "For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside?" gives churches the responsibility to judge those within the church and excludes those outside the church. So to argue that judgment should continue is to argue that one can be part of a church even though openly leaving it. But 1John 2:19 says the exact opposite, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us."

Sixth, it is seen by the world as harassment and thus a negative witness. The cartoon I opened this with gives a good picture of how the world sees this. Churches enjoy substantial latitude in the United States because they are voluntary associations, that is everyone is a member because they have chosen to be a member and are in no way coerced into remaining members. Organizations that are mandatory or make it difficult to leave for example: places of employment, business partnerships, condominium associations are subjected to substantially higher levels of regulation and oversight. Society believes people need protections against organizations that are compulsory in a way they do not in organizations that are voluntary. Americans regardless of their affiliation believe strongly in the notion that religion is voluntary, religions that are seen in any way to move towards compulsory are thought of quite negatively and treated quite harshly.

To help Christians from disciplining communities see this the way the world sees it, lets use an analogy. Picture a person who at one time had joined a coven and agreed forever to allow themselves to be bled into a common chalice during circle rites. They quit the coven, does the coven have the right to continue to bleed them?

I'll close with a quote:

We read not that Christ ever exercised force but once, and that was to drive profane ones out of His temple, and not to force them in. - John Milton (1608 – 1674)

Final version of the Ascol amendment

Here is the final version of the Ascol amendment that passed the SBC:


WHEREAS, The ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle, with Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message describing the church as a “local congregation of baptized believers”; and

WHEREAS, A New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (John 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9), which church practices believers’ only baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:16-20), and the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-30); and

WHEREAS, Local associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention compile statistics reported by the churches to make decisions for the future; and

WHEREAS, the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,266,920 members in Southern Baptist churches; and

WHEREAS, Those same profiles indicate that only 6,148,868 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures admonish us to exercise church discipline as we seek to restore any professed brother or sister in Christ who has strayed from the truth and is in sin (Matthew 18:15-35; Galatians 6:1); and now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, urge churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to maintain accurate membership rolls for the purpose of fostering ministry and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, even if such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and their pastors to implement a plan to minister to, counsel, and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture (Matthew 18:15-35; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).

Pastor Johnson on Insecurity

Pastor Johnson of Reformed Catholicism posted a terrific article on how to identify abusive churches, fake charges and why the elders do this.

First his advice on choosing a church:

People who are accused and sentenced of public sins in the local church should at least have had the option of having some sort of trial and public defense of their position with appropriate legal representation if they so desire before being ejected via excommunication. This too usually doesn’t happen and one will search long and hard for the right to have these things occur in by-laws, constitutions, books of church order, and other founding documents in churches where elders possess almost completely unchecked power. Of course, few people read these documents prior to joining a church like this and only after the fact do they find out what a difficult situation they face in opposition to elders who have the freedom to act as they please and not as they should. If you read your church’s founding documents and you see explicit protections for elders such as needing two or three witnesses before bringing them up on charges or that members current and former do not have the right to sue the church, other members, or elders–all without mention of similar rights and privileges for laymen–you likely have a church that has an eldership with too much power and probably the sort of abuse you want to avoid.

He also gives advice for pastors on how to identify these types of charges when they hear about. I think that other Christians can learn from this as well when it happens to their friends:

So, the next time they publicly shame someone whether from the pulpit or in a special meeting where someone gets excommunicated for something like not attending their church for a month–couched in terms like contumacy and rebellion and failure to submit to the direction of the elders legitimate questions in your mind ought to arise. All of this will come along with a litany of passages mentioned to prop up their authority (if they really had that authority in the first place–mentioning these passages would be completely unnecessary).

It’s not that legitimate discipline shouldn’t occur in a congregation but that illegitimate discipline always carries with it certain signs that careful and experienced eyes can see. Normally you won’t see just one charge against someone that is obviously serious and worthy of excommunication. Instead, you’ll see five or more because the elders who act wickedly in this regard have to justify the drastic action they are taking. Many times also the charges put forward if taken in isolation are not quite so serious individually considered especially when you drill down into the details. These charges are often abstracted from real Ten Commandment like violations. Public pursual of incest or child abuse in a congregation would be enough to get anyone excommunicated from almost any church. But it is difficult to justify doing the same for someone who merely has long-standing disagreements with the session over how they lead or what they may have said from the pulpit. So, the charges have to be multiplied to include all sorts of other justifications for taking more drastic steps toward a person than necessary.

Finally he makes a comment regarding the reason these pastors focus so much on authority:

Have you ever wondered why men in the ministry who engage in spiritually abusive activities are always touting their authority? One reason is because it allows them to do what they want to do virtually unquestioned. But there are deeper reasons. One big one I’ve noticed is insecurity. You see, real authority doesn’t have to be pumped up or backed up by certain passages in the Bible. It does not need the sort of extra help this and that verse provides. Real authority is inherent to the people that exercise it and not conditioned on the people’s correct understanding of this or that passage in Scripture.

Sovereign Grace Ministries' use of demotivational methods

This is a follow up conversation about Sovereign Grace Ministries. In our first article on the church we noted how the discipline procedure was designed to create a situation where abuse could occur during the discipline process. But in a cultic sort of church most abuse doesn't occur during the discipline process and abusive discipline process would be ineffective without other tools. So this article looks at the mechanics for the day to day abuses at Sovereign Grace. Sovereign grace itself is a large denomination and making people aware of what is being done to them should be helpful.

As for how this is designed to undermine self-esteem its a well known procedure in what is called de-motivational management. Humans are social and they respond to other people’s assessments of them. By creating a culture where others freely criticize a person and at the same time the recipient is supposed to be responding positively to those critiques virtually any decision they make in life will end up being attacked. That is if I make a choice someone is going to think I made the wrong choice quite frequently tell me so “as they were led by the spirit” and force me to doubt my own decision making ability.

The place you see this used most harshly (i.e. an extreme example) is in prisons with new prisoners. Guards will frequently force prisoners to do things that are ambiguous and then attack them verbally for whatever action they take.

Guard: 257319 Move to the right!

If prisoner moves to his right:
Guard: My right dummy. Pay attention.

If prisoner moves to his left:
Guard: Can’t you tell your left from your right!

If prisoner doesn’t move:
Guard: Are you deaf! (shoves prisoner)

In psychological terms the purpose to this method is to induce a state called "learned helplessness". This is a mild depression caused by creating situations which are negative and cannot be changed via. actions. Demotivation causes the person to believe that they are unable to rectify the negative situation not because it is inherently out of their control but rather because they are incompetent. The specific part of demotivational management is called deconfirmation. A member of Sovereign Grace did an excellent job describing how this process worked:

Sorry to say this Jen, but the men are only “allowed” to be little gods (The marriage support group used the term “King”) in their homes, because the whole SGM church/culture experience is sooo emasculating. In general, I would agree with the previously cited hypotheses of De-Motivational Management and the Need for Affirmation being applied in a systematic manner against the participants. In our little “speck on the mold spore called SGM” (new term) people’s behaviors and contributions were acknowledged in two manners: some were honored on stage with some sort of dialogue and applause, and some were corrected for being prideful in attempting to contribute to the process/effort. The combination was brutal.

I’ll generically describe a repeated situation in our relationship with SGM. Assume for a moment that we really are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and He is omnipotent and fully capable of motivating us to pursue God’s will and expectations for us. ( I personally do believe that the Holy Spirit is active in our lives.) In that capacity, you are motivated to reach out and “care” for a struggling single mom, friend, or couple. It may be that you are pursuing God’s desire for compassion for that situation and that natural sense of peace moves you forward to provide that care or need, but in the eyes of a “competing leader or member”, who risks not receiving recognition for this same act of service, you are now treading on their turf. While the person that you helped is grateful, and the Holy Spirit gives you a sense of peace, your colleague corrects you for your pride and need to intrude in others’ lives. It is a huge emotional conundrum that gradually builds until you find yourself struggling with seemingly obvious decisions on caring and responding to the needs of others.

This situation repeated itself in dialogues with Pastors on caring for non-believers, responding to a phone call in the middle of the night, helping single mothers in difficult times, organizing a service project, and even assembling maps for a field trip. You want to get behind what God is doing to care for the hurting, but the cost of caring for them will often be hostility, correction for your compassion, and increased accountability for your pride and self centered behaviors. I even saw this occur when a general question was asked at a men’s meeting about the definition of the Gospel. A colleague (care group leader) responded by citing a common definition consistent with one of John’s epistles (perhaps even John 3:16) , but the Pastor wanted the definition “the Story of Christ” and he publically rebuked the man for not knowing the definion of the Gospel. The man was right, but now he was publically proclaimed in front of his peers to be the “village idiot”. (No good deed goes unpunished.)

The emotional consequences of these repeated confrontations build until you find yourself unable to make seemingly simple decisions regarding both moral and practical issues without the intrusion of other leaders into your life/family. Is a need to tighten the family budget a natural response to the rising cost of gasoline or a reprimand of your wife’s home economic skills or a condemnation of your capability as A MAN to provide for your family ? All three, if you’re lucky! Plus it comes with the added bonus of more time spent with your friends examining your latte budget and inadequate contributions to the building fund. but I digress…  (link to original post)

Other aspects is depersonalization actions are not taken by individuls but rather by SG or "leadership" or.... Classically this is done in a corporate setting, “You can substitute ‘I think this is a good idea’ with ‘the idea appears to be good’. Instead of ‘Let me welcome you to the company,’ use ‘The company welcomes you’.” however the same thing can be done in a church and is done by Sovereign Grace. This technique is used to create anxiety and increase emotional distance between leadership and membership. ( see article in The Time of London for a longer discussion of demotivation in a corporate setting).

SG Uncensored has moved to SGMsurvivors.com. I'd urge people breaking away to look there for support.

Interview with Xenos on membership and discipline policies

Since I have to be critical of churches all the time I’m delighted to be able to give a positive review of a church’s disciplinary processes. Xenos Christian Fellowship is located in Columbus Ohio near Ohio State. It was founded from an underground Christian newspaper and has exploded today into a congregation of around 5000 with 800 members that have received formal training and around 60 “home churches”. Home church leaders have had over 200 hours of classroom instruction, that is a level of training that would put them on par with most junior ministers in many denominations. This combination of a central organization with full minstrel training for “smaller churches” is the sort of behavior one usually sees in a denomination and not an individual church. So in effect Xenos is structured as a cross between a large church and a mini denomination, which is what originally led me to take an interest.

In addition to mixing the problems of a church and a denomination there are several other things that make Xenos a fascinating case study. The organization is almost entirely lay, and it is a point of pride how little a church of this size and accomplishment burns in terms of budget. Probably because the church is able to run so efficiently, they are able to afford having a young membership (young people can’t tithe very much) of first generation Christians. They mix a successful middle school and high school youth group with a successful college outreach. 75% of the church are people with no previous church background at all (a church of converts) and 15% transfers, and I would assume (though they don’t indicate) that the remaining 10% are children of current members. This is quite different from the 80-95%, transfer / children of current members commonly found in most evangelical churches. Xenos also practices church discipline frequently and effectively. They make it a core part of their leadership instruction (see links are below)

Finally, Xenos does not have a notion of formal membership, in the sense of a membership card or church covenant. Most church groups (as well as the law) differentiate quite heavily between attendance and membership. In fact leaders in the return to church discipline such as Mark Dever argue that a return to “biblical membership” is required for discipline. A great deal of the interview below will concern itself with the mechanics of how discipline is carried out without this clarity of formal membership.
It should be mentioned this membership informality includes no substantial differentiation between the baptized and the unbaptised, nor any sort of adult profession. This is genuinely unique for Xenos. And as my regular readers unique things generally are worrying signs. But again I’m hard pressed to see any intent to create an injustice in this system. It seems to be a reasonable attempt to address the community they are called to serve and I was unable to find any large gapping holes created.
I’m going to contact Mark Dever after this is posted and hopefully we can see a response. It appears we may have a counter case to his hypothesis.


Xenos provides information on their disciple:

• How Does Xenos Handle Church Discipline?
• The New Testament Pattern of Church Discipline
• Practicing Church Discipline in Xenos Fellowship

Leadership and Authority discusses the scope of discipline at Xenos.

So to summarize the many ways Xenos is a truly interesting case study. In terms of discipline being effective they suffer from many of the worst possible problems:
• They don’t have a well defined membership in particular it is not a covenant church
• Their membership is young
• Their membership often did not grow up in conservative Christian homes
• Their membership does not have long term strong ties to Xenos
• They aren’t a member of a denomination
• They have no business ties linking their membership to the church

On the other hand they also have many of the problems of a denomination further compounded by the fact that:
• Home church leaders are inexperienced by pastoral standards and are often disciplining for the first time.
• The relationships with the home church are very close and personal.
• The home churches are informal and thus lack the sorts of institutional supports a denomination can often depend on

To investigate Xenos, I contacted a member of their staff Jessica Lowery to ask questions regarding the details of Xenos’ procedures on discipline. Dennis McCallum lead pastor and one of the founders of Xenos stepped forward and answered the questions. This discussion on discipline will be rather unique in that Pastor McCallum was being asked questions appropriate to a denominational leader (like cross restoration policy) as well general church level policies on discipline. Throughout the interview Pastor McCallum presented well thought out considered and rather humane answers to some of the most difficult question I could throw at him.

The original material is quite disorganized since there was multiple back and forth rounds. I have freely reorganized the order of questions and answers however I have quoted the answers exactly. Further, I have vetted these answers and corresponding questions by Pastor McCallum prior to publishing on the blog, to make sure these accurately reflect his views and even the phraseology he prefers. These statements should be seen as written responses to an “on the record” interview.

Statements of explanation will be in black, McCallum’s answers in blue and questions in green.

Membership:

You possibly killed a bunch of my questions, with the comment about "75% of our membership". It was my understanding that Xenos doesn't actually have a notion of membership; a person who regularly attends a home church is as much a member as they are ever going to be , is this correct? I'm going to assume in the below that this is the case (that is people are not "members"), but if there has been a change (or I am misunderstanding) then adjust responses according . I'll drop my disciplining a non member type questions till the next round however.

Yes. But we still call them members in the sense that they are members of the body of Christ, and have membered themselves with us. It's true that we do not have "membership". but we were interested in our composition after reading a Barna book, so we sent out surveys to home group leaders asking about the people who regularly attend their groups. that's how we got the composition information.

In terms of membership the question was how Xenos would handle borderline cases as it does not have a clear line between a member and a non-member. Below is a discussion of the basic policies. The discussion assumes you have read the links above, or are familiar with discipline. The focus, as mentioned above is on discipline in a non membership context. It consists of a series of closely related cases where I am attempting to draw fine distinctions by changing the parameters slightly. These sorts of questions are very difficult for church leadership since they are designed to lay on grey boundary between black and white. They are specific to the church, what is grey for one is not grey for another. They expose the underlying philosophy quite well and any contradictions in the policy. I think it’s worth commenting that Pastor McCallum and Xenos did an excellent job on these.

I'm not following. Do they at any point ask to be members or declare themselves to be members of Xenos? What can a member do that a non member cannot do? How does one become a member rather than just a regular attender...? Most churches would argue that a non member can't actually be excommunicated. I hope a hypothetical is OK, to sort of separate this out. I'm assuming unrepentant cocaine use is seen as an excommunicatable offensive (if not just change the underlying sin). Here are a bunch of situations all relatively similar. Can these people be excommunicated, excluded, would they be... (just trying to address the jurisdictional issues here so assume calls to repentance are fruitless if given):

First, we don’t use the term excommunication. It’s not biblical, but a Catholic concept having to do with not being allowed to take mass. We refer to removing people from fellowship, which seems to be the focus in the New Testament. But yes. Any professed believer who is attending and won’t leave off coke could be removed.

Alice has attended a small church 5 times and admits she regularly uses cocaine. She refuses to stop. Everyone considers her still visiting.

That would probably also be the case with us.

Beth only attends central meeting but others who attend know she regularly uses cocaine. She refuses to stop.

We usually don’t bother visitors at CT. Home church would be a different matter, but still it would take a longer period and more persuasion before formal discipline would come into play.

Cathy has attended a small church for 2 years, but claims she is not saved. Cathy has had an adult baptism. She regularly uses cocaine and has refused to stop.

This would probably be a case for intense counseling, but could eventually lead to more forceful confrontation.

Doris has attended a small church for 2 years has not had an adult baptism and claims she is not saved. She regularly...

Wouldn’t make any difference

Eleanor claims to be saved, has attended a small church for 2 years and has had an adult baptism but claims her membership is with her hometown church and she is just a affiliate member of your church. She regularly...

Not good enough. She would be given an ultimatum.

Francis claims to be saved, has attended a small church for 2 years and has not had an adult baptism but claims her membership is with her hometown church and she is just a affiliate member of your church. She regularly...

Same.

Evidence and standards for conviction

What is the standard of proof in terms of discipline? That is how much doubt can there be about the actual sin, before a person can be disciplined?

Most discipline cases involve someone who admits the sin. We would not feel comfortable disciplining someone if we doubted his or her guilt at all. Usually there are multiple incidents involved over a period of time. In some cases, someone else has ratted the person out. The fact that the person actually did the sin must be established, and I think it always is. I can’t think of a case where the person didn’t admit to the facts.

Let me clarify this a bit. Generally there are 3 types of disputes regarding guilt. Disputes of fact (which you addressed), disputes of law (is something a sin or not) and disputes of application (does this particular fact qualify under this particular law). Its interesting that you haven't had disputes of fact do you know why?

We have had disputes, but these would need to be resolved before any discipline meeting would occur. If the facts haven’t been established by admission or multiple witnesses, we would not move to formal discipline.

This one comes off sounding more like a criticism then a question. I apologize in advance for being unable to phrase it better. The standard for conviction seems rather low (simple majority, vote at the same meeting as the presentation of charges and evidence, informed that central leadership agrees with the discipline, non neutral venue, right of the leader to exclude members -- vote stacking, minority required to follow the majority, etc...), I think I could probably convict any attendee of Xenos of the Kennedy assassination with that trial procedure. Why has Xenos chosen such a low burden? Is the goal simply to block the most egregious abuses and otherwise give the home church leaders discretion, or is there some other reason?

Again, the question at the meeting is not whether the sin has occurred or whether the person did it. These are already admitted. The question is what is going to be the best response—counseling within the church, or exclusion. Majority is a standard established in 2 Cor. 2 as sufficient for making this decision.

Degree of Punishment:

There are claims that Xenos practices shunning which is unusual among Baptists outside the Mennonite tradition. On the website there does not appear to be clear guidelines for shunning. What is the reason behind this?

We don’t agree that we practice shunning. Shunning is usually interpreted to mean the person is left within the group, but nobody will talk to or fellowship with them. It also implies complete cutting off of communication and interaction. If the person is put out of fellowship, Paul says believers should not “eat with such a one” (1 Cor. 5:11ff) which we take to mean casual fellowship. We would not discourage meeting to talk, as advised in 2 Thess. 3, and remind people to “not treat him as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother”

What is the extent of the disfellowshipping in practice?

Members are urged to not fellowship in a way that would bring comfort to the one under discipline, causing him/her to feel no reason to return to fellowship. This usually means not going out socially, etc. unless it is to discuss restoration. No rules about not doing business with the person. Also, families are usually considered an exception. We realize they will have social contact in the context of their family activities.

What if a member refuses to cut communication an excommunicated member?

Nothing we can do about that, but disapprove

Given that Ohio has case law is particularly hostile to shunning are there any additional legal protections you need to use when dealing with adults with their entire family and business associates in Xenos?

Breaking off casual fellowship is not an action taken by the church corporation, but by the individuals in a group as they feel led.

Discipline across churches

How much is each home church required to respect the decisions of the others. The website seems a bit back and forth on whether a person that is excluded from one home church are excluded from them all until such time as they are restored by the first. What if one of the home church leaders comes to believe another's discipline is genuinely in error? Can they cross restore even if the disciplining home church objects?

No, they cannot. They have to be resolved with the disciplining church. Only exception would be where discipline happened so long ago the original church is no longer intact.

Does Xenos respect the discipline of other churches? If so what churches qualify? (i.e. only Baptist, any protest, any Trinitarian Christian (Catholic excommunication), any Christian (LDS or JW churches), any discipline (a declaration of Cherum be upheld)).

In principle, yes, but only for evangelical Bible believing churches. Also their cause of discipline would have to be one we recognize as legitimate.

Does Xenos assume appellate jurisdiction (that is if the person argues they are wrongly excommunicated will Xenos investigate?)

Yes.

Will Xenos cross restore on repentance (i.e. allow a person who is genuinely repentant and willing to accept Xenos oversight that is however the excommunicated member of another church whose discipline Xenos respects to join a small group, without their original church restoring them).

We would call on them to seek resolution with the disciplining church. If we felt the church was being unreasonable, we would restore them.

Restoration

Can an excommunicated person be rebaptised at any point? That is if an excommunicated member believes they were not actually a Christian during the time of their excommunication can they request baptism or must they go through restoration? If they must go through restoration, do you recognize apostasy as separate from unrepentant sin or is apostasy just another sin?

They could be rebaptized if their testimony is that they were not a Christian at the time. Apostasy is just another sin.

Given that Xenos has a very young membership this one may not come up. How lasting are the effects of exclusion? For example, assume you discovered that a person who was a good quality member of a small church for 2 years had been disciplined 15 years earlier for a sin at the time (non reoccurring). Some church would excommunicate either on principle or for the deception. In others there would there be a general tendency towards restoration given that the underlying issue being so far in the past and that discipline in this case is likely to be harmful. Assuming you would go along with restoration what about things that might change within a decade. For example someone excluding as an undergraduate for persistent fornication that seeks to return during graduate school, now married to another woman.

We would respect someone's change in lifestyle as fruit in keeping with repentance; and show them grace.

Right to Appeal

One of the things I’m always writing about (example) is the importance of the appeals process for discipline. While its obvious there is quite a bit of oversight, I failed to note during the initial Q&A there was in fact an appeal. The correction is explained below.

There doesn't seem to be a genuine appeals process. Has this actually caused problems where people have continued to argue their innocence and church members (outside their home church) continue to believe it?

This doesn’t come up, because we would probably not exclude anyone who denied they have done wrong, unless there were eye-witnesses. The person does definitely have the right to appeal to the elders if they felt they were being falsely accused. We have never had a case like this. If they feel the discipline is wrong, they can ask for a grievance board to be convened. Current Ministry Teams at bottom. also mentioned in Leadership and Authority in the Church.

Have you had disciplinary schisms and if so what happened and how did you handle them?

If you mean schisms resulting from disagreement over discipline, yes. These have been small, and people usually either leave or get over it. We do not allow them to campaign in the church to overthrow what was decided.

Marian Guinn vs Church of Christ Collinsville

The Marian Guinn case in 1984 was a key precedent for the Hancock case. The case involved a nurse who started dating Pat Sharp, the Mayor of Collinsville. Because he was divorced on unbiblical grounds the Church of Christ forbid Marian from seeing him. She continued to see him and more confrontations insured. She in confidence admitted to having a sexual relations. A church discipline case was started, Marian quit the church. The church rejected the withdrawal, excommunicated her and then advised all the churches in the neighborhood of her actions. Marion sued and the case became a major precedent.

This case presents a wealth of topics. First off, the Oklahoma court found against Marian regarding the issue of internal confidentiality. Again churches are not required to maintain confidences there is no expectation of privacy (see Penley v. Westbrook for a modern example). This is something that comes up again and again in discussions regarding church discipline so its worth commenting here, that a member that talks within a church to another member has no legal rights of confidentiality. Readers here should note that if they want to maintain their legal rights, they should not discuss things in church or in a church capacity!

Second, the court again affirmed a high bar for oversight of those actions that occurred while she was a member of the church. A church can do whatever it wants without any legal oversight unless such actions endanger peace, safety or public order.

The third point though is one many conservative churches most certainly went against the notion of church covenant. The court held that binding commitments to a church had no effect in law. Quite simply after withdrawing a church court was just another entity:

Engel [ed: school led prayer is illegal] is supported by historical fact; many who left England and its governmentally established church for America did so in pursuit of religious freedom. The First Amendment of the United States [775 P.2d 777] Constitution was designed to preserve freedom of worship by prohibiting the establishment or endorsement of any official religion. One of the fundamental purposes of the First Amendment is to protect the people's right to worship as they choose. Implicit in the right to choose freely one's own form of worship is the right of unhindered and unimpeded withdrawal from the chosen form of worship. In Engel it was the government that, by advocating one particular form of religious worship, threatened to limit freedom of choice; here, it is the Collinsville Church of Christ that, by denying Parishioner's right to disassociate herself from a particular form of religious belief, is threatening to curtail her freedom of worship according to her choice. Unless Parishioner waived the constitutional right to withdraw her initial consent to be bound by the Church of Christ discipline and its governing Elders, her resignation was a constitutionally protected right....

By voluntarily uniting with the church, she impliedly consented to submitting to its form of religious government, but did not thereby consent to relinquishing a right which the civil law guarantees her as its constitutionally protected value. The intentional and voluntary relinquishment of a known right required for a finding of an effective waiver was never established. On the record before us Parishioner - a sui juris person - removed herself from the Church of Christ congregation rolls the moment she communicated to the Elders that she was withdrawing from membership.

WHEN PARISHIONER WITHDREW HER MEMBERSHIP FROM THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AND THEREBY WITHDREW HER CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH SHE HAD IMPLICITLY AGREED TO SUBMIT TO ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION, THOSE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS THEREAFTER TAKEN BY THE ELDERS AGAINST PARISHIONER, WHICH ACTIVELY INVOLVED HER IN THE CHURCH'S WILL AND COMMAND, WERE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT [775 P.2d 778] PROTECTION AND WERE THE PROPER SUBJECT OF STATE REGULATION.

While the First Amendment requires that citizens be tolerant of religious views different from and offensive to their own, it surely does not require that those like Parishioner, who choose not to submit to the authority of any religious association, be tolerant of that group's attempts to govern them. Only those "who unite themselves" in a religious association impliedly consent to its authority over them and are "bound to submit to it." Parishioner voluntarily joined the Church of Christ and by so doing consented to submit to its tenets. When she later removed herself from membership, Parishioner withdrew her consent, depriving the Church of the power actively to monitor her spiritual life through overt disciplinary acts. No real freedom to choose religion would exist in this land if under the shield of the First Amendment religious institutions could impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts.

This bears repeating. Once a withdraw has occurred the first amendment protections don't belong to the church, rather they belong to the individual. All religious activity in the United States is consensual, a person who publically claims not to be a member of a church is legally not a member of that church and church discipline cannot continue without consent. A church attempting to discipline a person that has withdrawn can be found to be engaging in a form of harassment.

The original judgment against Church of Christ was for $390,000 which was six times the annual budget of the church. The court did reverse the damages since the original court had failed to separate which tortuous acts had before and after her withdraw.

See Also

• This blog maintains a list of legal cases which influence church discipline
• The full ruling from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Time Magazine article on the case

Sovereign Grace Ministries

Sovereign Grace Ministries (SG) is a family of churches of the charismatic baptists led by C. J. Maheney, with a reformed theology. That is a reformed baptist outlook that is on the far right but not outside the American Christian mainstream. Pictured at the right is the well known "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" author Joshua Harris, who now leads Covenant Life Church, a flagship church for Sovereign Grace. Recently a discussion board by the name of Sovereign Grace Uncensored has been founded which aims to critique the church without the censorship which the blog maintainer (who goes by krismum7). During a thread Your Questions and Concerns a point was raised about church discipline and one of the posters recommended your humble author. So During the discussion your author actually found himself arguing that he saw no evidence that SG was anything but quite open and upfront that they practiced church discipline and that they expected their discipline to be respected by other churches. I agreed to do an analysis of a church covenant and the one currently pastored by Joshua Harris (hence the choice of pictures).

For readers with no association with the SG the main point of interest is that this covenant was written after the Norman Hancock ruling and thus explicitly comes into compliance with the law in a way that many Southern Baptist churches have not done yet. It also presents an opportunity to teach how one should read through one of these agreements in some detail and read between the lines.

Appendix C which is referred to several times in the document, the "Statement on Church Discipline"

As members of Covenant Life Church we take seriously our responsibility to “restore” members who fail to allow God to discipline them personally for their sins. This means that beginning with private confrontation and, if necessary, leading to public rebuke, we seek to help one another overcome any refusal to repent of those words and actions that the Bible clearly defines as sin. This includes not only sinful words and behavior, but also refusal to turn from heretical doctrine.
Jesus outlined a process for addressing another believer’s sin in Matthew 18:15-17.5 As a church we agree that this is the way for us to approach someone who refuses to appropriate God’s grace for change. (Appendix C)

Two points worth mentioning:

1. The church does punish heresy but as indicated below they don't have mechanisms for a heresy trial. Many of the members on SGUncensored complained of the repressive atmosphere regarding teachings and the origin of the problem is here.
2. Everyone uses the "Matthew 18 process" this is standard and is covered in depth on my walk throughs section.
   

The document then goes on to describe parts 1 and 2 of Matthew 18. From here there is another clause worth discussing in detail:

When the church begins to formally discipline a member, the church’s pastors inquire with the individual member in question to confirm fact and to appeal for change. If change is not forthcoming, the pastors will inform the church of the member and his sin, urging members to contact the erring member and appeal for repentance. During this time, the member under discipline may not participate in the Lord’s Supper or attend meetings for the purpose of fellowship. Instead, his participation with members should revolve around his need for change. If, after a reasonable period of appeal, no repentance if forthcoming, the pastors will inform the church again, this time announcing that they must revoke membership and that the church must now treat the unrepentant person as they treat unbelievers: in other words, when they interact with this person they should not have “fellowship” as the Bible defines it, but they should appeal for the former member to put his faith in Jesus’ work on the cross for him and turn from his sin.

The Matthew 18 process is quite vague as it names 5 steps yet there is a tradition of a 4 step process:

1. Individual confrontation
2. Confrontation by 2 or 3 others
3. Notification of the church
4. Suspension of the Lord's supper
5. Excommunication

Every church has the problem of exactly which steps to combine (interesting the Lutherans do actually make it a 5 step process). In the case of SG steps 3 and 4 are combined which is not unusual. The other common alternative to combine steps 4 and 5 and identify excommunication with suspension from the supper. These two positions have quite different idealogies. Combining 3&4 generally sees the process as progressing through ever increases circles of authority:

1. Step 1 = an individual Christian, usually a 1st party to the events
   
2. Step 2 = a small group of Christians, that is neutral 3rd parties
3. Step 3,4 = Church leadership
4. Step 5 = The church session which empowers the leadership
   

Conversely those that combine 4&5 have an ideology of levels of proof:

1. Step 1 = An individual makes an accusation (like a complaint to the police)
   
2. Step 2 = The accusation has grounds and is of the sort the church address (D.A files)
   
3. Step 3 = The accusation has been confirmed by evidence (person is found guilty)
   
4. Step 4, 5 = Punishment and then increasing punishment (think probation and then jail after a probation violation).
   

Both systems are reasonable and backed by centuries of tradition. However both systems have a concern with due process. In the 3&4 system it occurs with a series of very different bodies each examining the case. In the 4&5 system it occurs mainly in Step 3, the trial. To use a 4&5 system without a trial procedure and moreover expect the full session to enforce punishment sounds, quite frankly, like cultic behavior unworthy of a church or organization with close ties to SBC leadership.

Now there does appear to be some sort of a clause here where the leadership meets to "confirm fact" however:

• What if they don't receive confirmation but they have strong evidence?
• What if they receive partial confirmation?
• What if they receive confirmation but there is disagreement on interpretation of fact?
• What is there is disagreement on law?
• What is there are complex extenuating circumstances and thus one party sees the acts as situational?

None of this is addressed. A policy like this begs for abuse. I should however mention so far no evidence has been presented as to whether this is an error (an act of ignorance) or a deliberate attempt to create a cultic atmosphere (an act of malice). I will be inviting SG to comment and my hope would be that I am misunderstanding the document or that there is another document which comments in much more detail on these questions, and what is above is a gross simplification of the process.

In the membership agreement the membership specifically agrees to uphold this process, in particular they waive a right to review cases before engaging in corporate punishment:

I will watch out for church members and admonish anyone whose practice of sin requires it. If one of our number requires corporate discipline, I will support the efforts and direction of the church, as led by its pastors, to call that member to repent of his sins. I agree with the church’s doctrine and practice of church discipline. (Appendix A: Membership Agreement)

Now as mentioned above they are in compliance with the law:

At times a member may seek to withdraw from the church to avoid church discipline and its consequences. Just as a good shepherd will go after a sheep that has wandered from the flock (Matt. 18:12-14; Ezek. 34:4,8,16), so shall the pastors and members of this church seek to restore a wandering member to the Lord through biblical discipline. Therefore, discipline may be instituted or continued either before or after a member seeks to withdraw from membership if the Board of Governing Pastors determines that such discipline may serve to guard and preserve the honor of God, protect the purity of the church, or restore the wandering member to the Lord. While the church cannot force a withdrawing member to remain in this congregation, the church has the right and the responsibility to encourage restoration, to bring the disciplinary process to an orderly conclusion, and to make a final determination as to the person’s membership status at the time withdrawal is sought or acknowledged. In doing so, the Board of Governing Pastors, at its discretion, may temporarily suspend further disciplinary proceedings, dismiss any or all charges pending against the accused, or proceed with discipline and pronounce an appropriate censure.

After having blasted them for the above I should mention that this passage is fully compliant with the law, and I applaud SG for that (as I did above). It acknowledges that church membership is a voluntary association which can terminated at will by the member. The church most certainly does have the right to determine status of an exiting member (i.e. they can excommunicate a member who wishes to leave under discipline) but they cannot continue a disciplinary process against their consent to remain a member. If you are an SG member attempting to leave (How to leave a church) addresses your issues, if you want to examine your options (including information on how to circumvent and undermine a disciplinary process, how to survive discipline)

The final section was the point of inquest:

If a member leaves the church while he is under the scrutiny of the disciplinary process or while a censure against him is still in effect, and if the Board of Governing Pastors learns that he is attending another church, the Board may inform that church that the person is currently under church discipline and may ask that church to encourage the accused to repent of his sin and to be restored to the Lord and to any people whom he has offended. Such communications enhance the possibility that a person may finally repent of his sin, and, at the same time, serve to warn the other church to be on guard against the harm that the accused might do to their members (see Matt. 18:12-14; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Thess. 3:6-14; 2 Tim. 1:15; 2:16-18; 4:9, 14-15; 3 John 9-10).
Once the pastors make a sin publicly known, they commit as well to inform the church of repentance and restoration to fellowship as appropriate to the situation and the good of the church.
Christians who attend Covenant Life Church and have been excluded from fellowship from another church will not be allowed to participate in fellowship in Covenant Life unless they repent of their sins and make confession and restitution with their former church or the pastors of Covenant Life are able to determine that the former church did not apply church discipline according to Scripture.

Basically what this says is that SG respects the discipline of churches provided they would have acted similarly (that is they reserve appellate capacity) and at the same time expect other churches to uphold their excommunications. They also specifically commit to contacting other church to facilitate this. I'm not sure how to expand on my debating point here, SG frankly couldn't be more clear.

So in answer to, "As much as I admired and respected our SGM pastor, would I really want him (or, for that matter, any group of human authorities) to be able to dictate, for the rest of my life, the conditions of my church fellowship ANYWHERE?" that is precisely what this membership agreement asserts. Moreover this is not the only place they assert it, as I mentioned in the discussion on SGUncensored, one of if not the leader in the SBC for bring back pre civil war discipline is Mike Dever of 9Marks and Maheney wrote on the back cover that, "This is the best book I have read on this topic of critical importance.” Dever is also a founder of the "four friends" along with people like McArthur who have been preaching and practicing this sort of discipline for decades.

I find it curious that the SG membership didn't understand this position. Hopefully this point gets addressed in the discussion. And I will welcome SG leadership to comment on the above, in particular the complete lack of due process which neither Dever nor McArthur supports. There is no better way to undermine Church discipline then to create excommunications which the membership does not support but is required to uphold. History is replete with examples of the damage of invalid excommunications(see our QE series for examples). For a person looking to leave the church, a disagreement with these clauses in the membership agreement strike me as a very defensible reason for your letter of disaffiliation.

See also a later article on methodology of abuse.