Want to watch some reporters wade into really deep church-state waters and, as far as I can tell, keep their facts straight?
Then click here and head over to the Dallas Morning News to read a news feature by reporters Jeffrey Weiss and Michael Grabell entitled “Church, ex-member battle over discipline.”
This is one tough story, with multiple and clashing viewpoints about very emotional events and, to make matters worse, a conflict between the religious liberty of a voluntary association (that would be the church) and the privacy rights of several individuals (including one who had joined, and then quit, the congregation). What happens when someone threatens to pull this kind of conflict into a secular court?
Everything begins with Watermark Community Church, a growing, independent Protestant flock that is trying to take church discipline seriously — especially when it comes time to heal marriages and keep families together. Here’s a bit of what is going on:
An appeals court in Dallas is now being asked to decide where the right of Watermark — or any church — to confront sin ends and an individual’s right to privacy begins.
Can a church pursue someone who isn’t even a member?
Watermark, a fast-growing nondenominational church in northeast Dallas, says the case involves accusations of adultery, a wife who wanted to save her marriage, a husband who sat on a board of a national Christian organization, and another woman who works for another church.
The man and woman accused by the wife and by Watermark of having an affair — identified in court documents only as “John Doe” and “Jane Roe” — say the church is distorting what happened and has invaded their privacy. (Both declined to be interviewed.)
It’s crucial that Weiss and Grabell note that courts try to avoid doctrinal conflicts of this kind unless a church is engaging in activities that lead to physical danger, fraud or profit.
The story also stresses that the man at the heart of these events — the anonymous Mr. Doe — signed papers saying he would submit to the discipline of church leaders when he joined the church. Then, when the church chided him about an alleged affair, he left the congregation. But his former wife was still a member and the church’s leaders hoped the marriage could be healed.
One more detail is critical: Many churches have created explicit forms that allow clergy to offer this kind of guidance in the lives of members. This directly links the rights of the church to the concept of “freedom of association,” which allows religious groups to maintain their doctrinal unity.
I also like how Weiss and Grabell do not attempt to label the churches involved in this case. Mr. Doe does not flee a “fundamentalist” church in order to join a “moderate evangelical” church or some other strange combination of vague terms. Instead, the reporters simply describe some of the details of the case in clear language. Here’s an example:
According to church officials, Mr. Doe and his wife joined Watermark more than a year ago. Both signed the papers agreeing to church accountability. Soon, the wife went to Watermark leaders, saying she had evidence that her husband was cheating on her, church officials said. Her plea for help set off what Watermark calls a “Matthew 18” process, referring to a passage in the Gospel:
“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.”
This is a sad, but important story. Check it out. It’s important for newspapers to wrestle with these kinds of church issues, rather than simply burying them under legal jargon.
A court may have to settle this case. But it is also clear that the church leaders were trying to help church members take their vows seriously — their vows to each other and their vows to the congregation that they had elected to join.
 | Posted at 3:04 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (13) |
June 4, 2006, at 6:01 pm
The “covenant” that these people signed isn’t worth the paper that it’s written on. And the church comes across as extremely controlling and quite willing to invade the privacy of non-members. I’d like to make it clear that I have no truck with adultery, but I do think that the invasion of privacy that the church wants to engage in is probably actionable on the part of the non-member Ms. Roe. I get a profound sense of vindictiveness cloaking itself in righteousness from the church.
Here’s a link to a Dallas Morning News article that gives more information.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/060406dnmetnuwatermark.86c7c7d.html
June 4, 2006, at 6:49 pm
Reminds me of a Sharia process used in Islam. I wonder what happens when domestic violence is the reason that the wife wants to end the marriage. Is she told to obey her husband? Would they try to save a marriage that involves allegations of domestic violence, or ask the abuser to reprent and hope he doesn’t do it again? What happens if she doesn’t want to have more children, but he does? I wonder how many women sit on these boards of elders.
While saving marriages is always an important thing for church communities to do, be forced to submit to church discipline and agreeing to let the elders make rulings seems pretty scary and frought with danger.
If these were Muslims instead of fundamentalist Christians, would this be considered a good news story?
June 4, 2006, at 7:19 pm
I love the “’Matthew 18’ process†— sounds like something out of a biblical cop show. “We got a Matthew 18 in progress at the corner of Ninetieth and Ninth, send backup!”
June 4, 2006, at 7:39 pm
Ummm…folks, the church is siding *with* the wife, here. And she and her husband went in with eyes wide open. The process of joining this church is pretty involved and anyone who does so can’t claim to be surprised by what happens in the church… (As for the “other woman,” that’s a different set of questions…)
And btw, my feeling is that domestic violence would not be accepted by Watermark any better than adultery.
Jeff Weiss
DMN
June 4, 2006, at 7:44 pm
SUSAN AND JEFF:
I think Susan has some good questions and I have no doubt that, handed another 50 inches of type and some follow-up space, that Jeff & Co. would answer them.
In the world of modern megachurches, this congregation may be running a licensed counseling center for all you know, with a bit more sophistication than you would imagine. The issue of women on the board of elders or directors would also vary RADICALLY from megachurch to megachurch.
And one more thing. That question about sharia and Muslims? That kind of religious court system within the national system is coming sooner rather than later. Yes, that would be a good —meaning important — story to tell!
June 4, 2006, at 11:39 pm
What about the flip side? “Suffering for righteousness’ sake” is a significant part of the Christian experience in 2006, at least for many around the world.
Much of the evil in world is mediated or facilitated by institutions that break laws. Does anyone have any knowledge of any church that has ever “went on record” in criticism of a legally established record institutional wrongdoing against a Christian (or other) who “suffered for righteousness’ sake” in confronting it?
Church discipline is a one-way street, because Christianity not only prohibits some actions, in commands others, ones that can put one at risk of institutional retribution, which the Chuch does not use its moral authority to de-legitimize, when legally established, making it just a “speeding ticket” to the lawbreaking institution.
Vis-a-vis this case, where is the invasion of privacy? If the wife seeks a divorce, she can make a public record of the allegations of adultery, with names, dates, and other evidence, something she is trying to prevent. She has interests in this matter, interests related to the facts of the alleged adultery.
June 5, 2006, at 2:53 am
I guess I can understand the sharia coment above, but it seems to me that the church is doing something kind of like Jewish courts that have operated in the U.S. for centuries. It would be nice if the reporter was given the space to explain how this church’s “matthew 18” process is like and unlike the Jewish court system with which most Americans (in big cities) are familiar.
June 5, 2006, at 3:38 pm
I am a member at Watermark. Of all the other small/medium/mega/other churches I have come in contact with, Watermark shows more effective and practical actual action towards the Acts 42 model than I’ve ever seen.
And also more real love than I’ve ever seen, where Love = Grace + Truth. Many “feel good” churches are great on Grace but fall down on Truth, and this results in terible pain. Many legalist “holy huddles” are great on calling others sin sin, but sin in not dealing with it with Grace to go along with the Truth, also resulting in terible pain.
My teenage daughter went through some very tough, rebellious, and relationally strained times for about two years. Due to things she said and her behavior in small group and counciling, her leaders came to suspect that I might be physically abusive towards her. I’m not going to detail the process from there, but we were both willing (if at times reluctant) to change and we recieved lots of both Truth and Grace from Watermark. All biblical, all in love. Sydney and I are very close, and we both continue to learn and grow …
The vast majority at Watermark and I were introduced to this issue when Todd told us that, as some had noted to him, Watermark was in the media. He told us that
- We were being sued by an unnamed member.
- “Member” means they have gone through the membership process. The accountability you accept as a member is not glossed over. I’ve been there more than most.
- This member was struggling with an unnamed issue.
- The member rejected individual council regarding the issue. Mat 18 step 1.
- The member rejected council from a small number of other Christian, some from Watermark, some not, that this person was all ready in relationship with. Mat 18 step 2.
- The member quit the church, which the accountability accepted by all members is not permitted to avoid the Mat 18 process.
- Step 3, which prompted the ex-member’s lawsuit, was preparation of a letter to those who had participated in the counciling that stated the behavior, the process of wise council per Mat 18, and the individual’s rejection of that council.
- Pray for this individual and reconcilliation.
The only other comment I’ve heard during a service is when an elder told us that due to the media attention Watermark had posted a statement on the website http://www.watermark.org and reminded us that God is in control and is fully capable of defending his name.
“Marital issues” only became “adultery” from the media, not from the church. Why the individual would be concerned that a letter to those already involved in the counciling could go to employers only clicked when I read “a husband who sat on a board of a national Christian organization”.
While I don’t know any more than any of you regarding the facts of this situation, I do know the heart of Watermark from experience. Love. Truth, covered by Grace. Grace absent of acceptance of Truth is not Love. This person has been loved by Watermark, even if it is painful, embarassing, and inconvient for him to accept the Truth part of that love.
Healing and dealing with sin and temptation within the context of community and accountability is key at Watermark. Pastor Todd has spoken very publicly about his personal struggles with pride, arrogance, and lust and how essential the accountabilty relationship he has with a few other men is crucial to him struggling well. At appropriate times I have heard Watermark elders, staff, and key leaders speak about their struggles to overcome adultery, alcohol and drug abuse, abortion, eating disorders, pornography, homosexuality, sexual abuse … all with the expectation that their transparancy with their struggles will be used by God to help someone far from Him get closer and find healing.
I fully belive that the leadership of Watermark wants only for John Doe, Jane Doe, me, you, themselves, and everyone else to turn towards God, confess, repent, and turn from sin.
I’ve never been to this blog before, I came across this entry with a Google News search. I’ve seen posting on other blogs, but this is the only one I have made an entry at. I have no desire at all to participate in any kind of polite Christian flame war or any other kind of adversarial discource.
This conversation seems good hearted and well reasoned, and I felt that these comments here would be recieved with the heart I intend.
This really isn’t a legal issue, it is a heart issue. Top to bottom, Watermark is a church full of sinners who need a savior. Please pray for all involved, and that as this situation plays out that God’s purpose is in the world is advanced.
Be blessed,
Vince
June 5, 2006, at 4:40 pm
The attorney for the church was on the radio here in Austin this morning and mentioned one other thing, namely, that Jane Roe is an employee of another church and that Watermark had contacted that other church in relation to this issue.
Regarding the Matthew 18 thing, I always interpreted that as a guideline for how an individual is supposed to act, not how a church is supposed to act. The third step involves going to the church with the issue when the first two steps are unproductive. If it is the church itself following the steps, how, then, do they go to the church for assistance?
Or perhaps it was Jane Doe who went to the church, and the only involvement of the church was at the request of Jane Doe, in order to facilitate step 3?
In my opinion, John Doe has every right to leave the church if he wants to. Jane Doe also has every right to stay at the church and seek the assistance she can find there.
June 5, 2006, at 5:45 pm
One of the article’s little surprises was the revelation that, legally, the church can now contact the “other woman’s” employer and inform them of their suspicions. In a secular context, that potentially becomes tortious interference with an employment relationship, but the way the reporters explain it, the courts tend to handle these kinds of situations differently when free exercise of religion is involved. Interesting.
IMHO, Watermark was fine until it began getting those outside of church leadership and beyond the immediate family involved. The final step in the process, per the cited Scriptures, seems to be excommunication (i.e., terminating the person’s fellowship with the local church), not no-holds-barred gossip-mongering. The process used by Watermark in this case seems to have, in its later stages, become infected with malice toward the adulterer. Of course, the chronology of who talked to whom (as it comes out in court) will be key in discerning motives.
June 6, 2006, at 12:04 am
[…] In other news, apparently there’s a church in Dallas that’s being sued by one of its members (or former members, depending on your perspective) over what amounts to a case of biblical church discipline. Hopefully, whatever court gets this case will follow the precedent set by previous similar cases and say that a civil court has no standing to adjudicate religious matters, but if not, I shudder to think of what could end up happening if a non-Christian (or non-theologically trained) judge is called upon to determine whether or not a church’s pastors/elders are interpreting the Bible correctly. […]
June 10, 2006, at 2:46 am
Some context…
Information from Watermark: http://www.watermarkcommunity2.org/pages/legal
Pastor Wagner on Care and Correction in the Church: http://www.watermarkcommunity.org/communications/dmnews.pdf
June 12, 2006, at 4:49 pm
Dave and Vince…humbled by your postings. Might also direct others to http://www.drewmarshall.ca/audio/060603churchdiscipline.mp3 if they would rather listen than read.