I recently read an article about a Dallas appeals case that made me really think about the role of the church in the "discipline" of its members. How should a church respond (if at all) if one of its members is arrested for DWI? For murder? For shoplifting? How should the church respond (if at all) to infidelity or divorce amongst its members? Where does a church's "right" to confront sin end and an individual's right to privacy begin? Some churches take a "hands-off" approach while others, like Watermark Church in North Dallas, become actively involved. Some of you may know the story, but for those who don't, I will summarize:
All members of Watermark Church are made to sign a document (a loosely based contract I would guess though I was not able to find the document online) stating that they will (and this is a direct quote) "submit themselves to the care and correction of the Board of Elders." The church has adopted what they call the Matthew 18 process based upon the pretty well-known passage found in Matthew 18:
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. ... If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you. ... If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church."
You should be able to tell by now that this will likely get nasty.
Husband and Wife sign on the dotted line and join Watermark Church. Wife finds out that Husband is cheating and seeing another woman who is not a church member of Watermark (but is an employee at another Dallas church). The Wife and some friends confronted Husband. Husband admitted to the affair and said he would stop. The End? Not quite.
Husband did not stop seeing the other woman. Wife finds out and goes to the church to inform them of the situation in accordance with Matthew 18 and the church guidelines. The church has a regularly scheduled evening church meeting where the wife asks the congregation for prayer for her marriage. The pastor informs the church that Husband and Wife are having marital problems, but does not divulge the specific issue. Sounds ok so far, right? Hang on for one more paragraph.
Church then sends letters to 14 of Husband and Wife's friends calling a meeting to discuss the infidelity. The letter specifically details the "charges" for lack of a better word. 7 of the 14 are church members -- the other 7 are not. Husband did not show up at the meeting, which apparently did not make the church very happy.
Chruch sends letter to Husband stating that it is going to send a letter to the woman he was seeing, letters to the 14 friends stating that Husband refused to attend any meeting, and letters to the Christian organization that Husband was a board member of.
Pastor then calls woman directly and tells her to tell her boss, the pastor of another church, or else the church would call the pastor directly "even as we would want and expect others to contact us if one of our employees or members was engaging in activities damaging to the reputation of Christ."
The Husband and woman sued asking the courts to block the church from contacting anyone else, especially the woman's employer.
The church itself, aside from this whole issue, looks like a great place to attend (www.watermark.org). It appears that they have a growing thriving church with a bunch of activities and programs, including a program for kids with disabilities. The church website has their version of the story, their response, and their Matthew 18 process. Their website is light years ahead of most churchs (you can download their sermons to your iPod, for example).
Keeping the whole church/state lawsuit junk out of the discussion, what do you think about this? Did the church go too far? Did they do the right thing? Should they have done something different? Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There are rules/guidlines in Gosples and Paul's Epistles that we are to follow regarding church/believer's conduct.
At the same time, I think the church in question might have taken things a bit too far. I may be very wrong (and if so I am sure I will be quickly corrected) but I am pretty sure after the called for confrontations and 'rebuking' of the sin, if said person continues in their ways the church is to be done with them. NOT stop loving or praying for them.
1 Corinthians 5:2,6-7 teaches that, "Shouldn't you have rather been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?...Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast.
Verses 9-11 goes on to say, "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But I am now writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such, am do not even eat."
It seems that Watermark Church is looking to destroy this man and womans entire life. If anything the church will simply push these people so far away that they will never return to any church. As I stated above, the church should now be praying earnestly for this man in hopes that he will repent.
I would go into my whole "believers aren't perfect" and "expelling doesn't contridict the 'do not judge' command", but then I would go on forever and I don't think Bryan wants that.
Another great topic of debate my friend.
"Their website is light years ahead of most churchs (you can download their sermons to your iPod, for example)."
Total seperate note - our church plans on beginning this very soon as well.
The next step according to the church is being kicked out of the church and an instruction to the church body to treat the person as a non-believer in accordance with Matthew 18.
Interesting stuff. I actually think the church is on the right track, but I don't know that they should have taken the steps of notifying people that are not members of the church and thus have not signed an agreement to abide by the Matt 18 principle that this man did and wife did.
I'm torn about the church contacting the other church who employs the other woman. They have a point about knowingly living in continual sin and representing a body of Christ. Is it overstepping bounds for one minister to tell the other that sin has been confessed to but has not ended and involves his employee?
On a very similar note, a small group I am in is doing a study on a book called "Peacemakers" (there's a whole Peacemaker ministry headed by lawyer Ken Sande - www.peacemaker.net). It is about the idea of 1. living a peace making life and 2. taking disputes to the church instead of the courts as instructed in many NT passages. We actually have some people in our study that are trying to follow these guidelines right now with a very real legal issue involving the purchase of a business. Both parties claim to be Christians, but both go to different churches. The people in our study are the ones who feel they were wronged and may face financial downfall because of it. They, however, want to abide by this and have a church resolution rather than suing and are hoping the other party and both churches will cooperate in doing just this. I mentioned this to some prominent businessmen in our church and got a cool response. There was no interest, and in fact, a belief that the church was not smart enough to deal with this was expressed. I was sad to hear that.
To wrap this all together - can we pick and choose what biblical instruction we follow. It seems that our christian society is trying to do that. And this is New Testament instruction, not the old law. It's a twisted world we live in when a couple living in sin are the innocent victims and a church trying to follow God's teachings is one in the wrong.
Post a Comment