Touchy Tom

Christianity Today has a case of church discipline involving a new pastor who kicks a guy out who is active in the church but is "touchy". He's excommunicated by community vote having done this for years. In many ways this is an example of the way church discipline and excommunication are supposed to work. However everything about the incident sounds fake, like a made up example. Tell me what you all think

Mark Lauterbach comments from his blog

Mark's first book was on church discipline. I haven't read it but it will be on my to do list. Anyway he mentions discipline on his blog, though in general the comments seem rather circumspect (as does the blog). He doesn't seem to be a strong stance kind of guy which is unusual in someone who makes his first book about discipline. Anyway, I've invited him to comment.
The Gospel and the Purity of the Church part1 part2 part3 part4 part5 postscript

His latest post on evangelism is wonderful:

What does that mean? Well, it is simple. If the lesbian lovers bring the child to term and raise it for four years and then both of them are converted – and come to church – will they be welcomed? And what will be our counsel to them? The same would be true for the singe woman who adopts a child . . . or the couple that is living together as divorced . . . or the pregnant woman whose baby has been sold to another. And how would we white evangelical respond if someone took a distinctly non-Republican position in a discussion? What would we do with such folks if they visited church? If they invited us over for dinner? Would we invite them into our homes and lives?

We could add to this so many varieties of our modern culture – hair styles, tattoos (I don’t think they go away when people walk in the doors of the church or are converted), piercings. Or the guy who drives a Rolls Royce and throws away his substantial millions willy nilly. Or the dual income couple who sends their kids to child care and school every day and has a nanny. Or the single Mom who has to work in order to care for her children. Or the person who is now on their third marriage.

List of Cases

Some key court decisions on church discipline:

Yoder v. Helmuth

(Ohio Court, 1947)

Summary: A church member, Andrew Yoder, attempted to switch churches to buy a car. His previous church excommunicated and then shunned him. He argued that his business was destroyed and he and has family had been made to suffer intense emotional pain. He argued that this sort of discipline constituted religious coercion.

Outcome: The court supported the Yoder, found the the church leadership's act $5000 saying that while it couldn't make any individual interact with Andrew Yoder the church organizing the shunning had constituted a violation of his civil rights.

Bear vs. Reformed Mennonite Church

(Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1975)

Summary: A church member was excommunicated for criticizing the bishop's teachings. Other members, including the man's wife and children, were ordered to shun him. He argued that his business and family were destroyed.

Outcome: The court supported the man, saying that despite the church's First Amendment rights, its conduct interfered with superior concerns, such as the preservation of marriage.

Paul vs. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society

(9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, 1987)

Summary: A Jehovah's Witness in Washington withdrew from the church because she felt her parents had been unjustly excommunicated. The denomination said members who quit should be treated just like those who are excommunicated. When the member visited her hometown, friends in the church shunned her.

Outcome: The court said she had no standing because shunning is part of the faith and protected by the Constitution.

Guinn vs. Church of Christ of Collinsville

(Oklahoma Supreme Court, 1989)

Summary: Elders publicly confronted a church member with a rumor that she was fornicating with a man and asked her to repent. When she refused and tried to quit, the elders told the congregation to call her and urge her to repent. They asked other Church of Christ parishes to do the same.

Outcome: The woman was awarded monetary damages. The court said she withdrew her consent to be disciplined when she quit the church.

Wollersheim V. Church of Scientology

(California and USA Supreme Court, 1989)

Summary: Lawrence Wollersheim was subjected to criminal acts of abuse when he attempted to leave the church and a campaign of fraud as part of a discipline process.

Outcome: The courts held that criminal acts even if part of religious process are not protected. The courts reaffirmed the 4 part test of Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) for regulating expression of belief. They held in particular that discipline may not include criminal acts.

Williams vs. Gleason

(14th District Texas Court of Appeals, Houston, 2000)

Summary: Elders at a Presbyterian church disputed a Sunday school teacher's lessons. The teacher filed a complaint against the elders. They in turn accused him of lying and disciplined him. A deacon's wife called another Presbyterian church where the teacher preached and questioned his qualifications.

Outcome: The court said it was constitutionally prohibited from ruling on an ecclesiastical dispute over church discipline.

Bryce vs. Episcopal Church

(10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Denver, 2002)

Summary: A Colorado Episcopal church sent letters and held meetings with members after learning that its youth minister had entered into a same-sex civil commitment with a minister in a non-Episcopal church. The letters said homosexuals are promiscuous and get terrible diseases. The youth minister and her partner said members made offensive remarks at the church meetings.

Outcome: The court said the two women had no standing to sue. Though the partner wasn't a member, the church still had a right to discuss their religious beliefs.

Penley vs. Westbrook

(Texas Supreme Court, 2004)

Summary: A woman and her husband attended a group marriage discussion hosted by their Bible church pastor, a licensed professional counselor. The woman divorced her husband and quit the church. The pastor sent a letter to the congregation, saying she had an inappropriate relationship with another man.

Outcome: The court said the pastor's First Amendment rights might not apply because of his role as a licensed counselor. He has appealed to the Texas Supreme Court.

See Also

Jim West and discipline

Jim does a little looking at history. Finds a few cases part1 part2 part3 part4 part5 He ends with a quote from 1774:

“A church of Christ is like a garden or vineyard, which, if not taken care of and this ordinance of excommunication not used, will be like the vineyard of the slothful, overrun with thorns, nettles, and other weeds; but by means of this it is cleared of the weeds of immoralities and the bitter roots of false doctrine are plucked up and eradicated, and withered branches are gathered and cast out.”

Mainly though the posts are too short to have much to comment on. Though Jim seems very interested in the topic.

Excommunication of non members, Norman Hancock

The case of Norman Hancock is an interesting one. It establishes firmly that churches cannot excommunicate members who leave during discipline, based on the Marian Guinn precedent. That once someone quits instantly their legal protections against libel and slander are restored. The state has no authority over the the disciplinary process within the church, but the person has no longer given their consent and this changes things.

The case is standard. In 1985 the Mormon church excommunicated Norman Hancock after he submitted a letter of resignation to the church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an "excommuication": the records would show that he resigned, that is he had asked his name be removed from thechurch role.

http://mormonalliance.org/casereports/volume3/part1/v3p1c05.htm
Mormon Alliance Home Page

Charismatic defense, Ted Haggerd and Chalcdeon

Chalcedon takes a hard line.

Nov 3: They attack the Charismatic right for being too soft on homosexual leaders. They list: Paul Cain, Roberts Liardon, Paul Crouch, and Ted Haggard. Arguing (in essence) the problem is systematic to the movement.

Nov 10: An explicit call for immediate excommunication.

"I have no compassion for Haggard. I have no compassion for the delusional church members either who cannot discern between good and evil. I do not have a compassion for his wife who should have clearly known her husband was "up to something." Believe me, wives know.

The only party deserving compassion are Haggard's children....

Haggard did not "fall" into immorality. He jumped with both feet. Using such descriptives as "fall" and "struggle" are heinous attempts at whitewashing this grotesque offense against God. The woman who wrote me is part of the problem as she is prepared to coddle a man who must be turned over to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5).... put him out of the church lest a worse thing fall upon both him and you." Your coddling of his wickedness is causing the heathen to blaspheme the name of our Lord even more...Haggard didn't want restoration. He wanted anal sex along with crystal meth to enhance the experience"

Nov 15: Defends the position for judgment and continues

"Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that the Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (I Cor. 5:5). You see, this is restoration. The only type of restoration for such extreme criminality.'

Nov 16: Greg Bahson continues the theme:

We are without chastisement, and therefore, we are an assembly of bastards. We act as if we have no father because we live like those without discipline. We are unruly, disobedient children that do not share in His holiness. We sleep soundly in a bed of transgression and welcome sodomites as our bedmates.

America is a nation under judgment, and rightfully so. The insanity of the Religious Right, the corporatism and homosexuality of the GOP, and the added perversions of Christian leaders are all clear indicators that mainstream evangelicals are identified with the wrong groups. Granted, a whole host of them have not bowed their knees to Baal, but their silence is deafening.

Nov 21: Chris Ortiz states he believes the evangelical movement itself is becoming apostate because of their liberalism:

For a number of years now I've been persuaded that without restraint the modern evangelical/charismatic church is in danger of eventual apostasy within its multiple factions. After reading Article 29 of the Belgic Confession, I saw disturbing parallels:
As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God;
It does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ;
It does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in His Word;
It rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases;
It bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ;
It persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

__________________________________________________________

OK so this is an attack on the hard right from the harder right. However, what this presents for defendants is an interesting list of people.

1. Everyone in the list is a minister
2. Everyone in the list is an important minister and a leader of tens of thousands
   
3. Everyone was married with children at the time of their sins
4. None of these people were excommunicated

I think this list might be a good one for a fairness defense for people from Charismatic groups. None of the kids that are getting excommunicated rise to this level. Either homosexuality is a serious sin and Chalcedon is right or the churches by excommunicating kids while doing nothing to leaders is proving that their interests are not in bringing sinners to repentance but rather in proving their righteousness by condemning the helpless. Of course they also mention Jimmy Swaggart who had 2 separate major sex scandals (as well as wrongful termination issues).

Disqualified forever

A blogger dealing with church discipline (interesting read). He castigates the church for not having it. He brings up a case of a guy had 17 affairs in 7 years. He is something of a leader and the blogger develops a 4 point plan.

1. Confess and ask forgiveness from his wife;
2. Confess and ask forgiveness from each of his families;
3. Confess to the Sunday School class that he had started and to step down from any future leadership position for due to his lifestyle he was disqualified forever in serving in any kind of local church leadership role, and
4. Go with an elder of the church to every one of these seventeen women in the Nashville area and ask for forgiveness as well.

Now I'm a little curious about disqualified forever. Paul was in the business of killing Christians and yet he wasn't disqualified forever. The idea of a church discipline that offers no chance of full reinstatement is worth discussing. I hope Steve responds either here or on his blog.

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.