More Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill BS--Church Discipline Contracts

[Guest Anonymous]

I've never been "put under" church discipline, but I grew up in such a church.

I did too, although we signed no contracts. Church discipline happened once, and was 'mild' compared to the MH issue, but I still feel chilled by it some 20 years later. Basically an elder stood up at the end of a communion service and announced that a member (someone close to me in age) had committed a sin - the details of which we were to 'trust' the elders with, and as a consequence of their unrepentance they had been put out of fellowship. They could attend non-communion meetings, but would not be allowed at the Lord's Table or considered a member unless they came to true repentance. Gossip flew round like wildfire but we were not allowed to know any detail. The person's father begged us, the then 'young people' not to socialise or eat with the person concerned, as their salvation depended on it. From the gossip that emerged, it appeared that the person excommunicated had been in a dispute with a well-regarded (though old battle-axeish), long-time church family, and as a younger person may have inflamed the situation more than necessary, but the reason to put him out of fellowship seemed to be mostly around keeping peace with the prominent family.

I was a student, living away most of the year, at the time, and the person was not a close friend, so I didn't have to make any deliberate choices regarding them - but I still felt like a heel for being part of the church that ostracised and ruined him. I couldn't put my finger on it at the time, but the whole debacle was part of what started me questioning and considering the danger of having membership of a body with virtually no accountability for the leadership.

[Guest Anonymous]

I thought Driscoll was American? UK laws on libel/defamation are far stricter than American ones. In the US, you basically need to prove that someone was actually lying, that they knew that they were lying, and that it wasn't fair comment or satire. This guy admitted that he cheated. Spreading it around to the congregation shows no respect for his privacy, but I don't think he can legally stop it. It would be like stopping an ex from complaining to all of her friends.

I must have cross-posted with you when I edited to acknowledge that I am from the UK, with no knowledge of Seattle or US law.

In a situation where my entire life and livelihood was being threatened, I am sure I would consult a lawyer to be sure though.

[Guest Anonymous]

To give another example - let's say someone was well-known as a prominent member of church X. Then, let's say that this same person did non-sexual stuff that wasn't actually illegal, but was certainly nasty and against church teachings (being horrible to family, treating people badly in the congregation, using racist language, etc.) If a private talk isn't working, then a public "this person is engaging in horrible behavior and won't be welcome unless he changes" speech could be warranted. It's not just about the church member - it's about public warning if warranted, and also about making the church's own values and reputation clear. Remember in 2008 how Obama got criticized for associating with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and then made a public speech criticizing him? Similar idea. I know someone who was tossed out of my synagogue - and quite frankly, it should have happened sooner, because he used and abused his reputation as a religious member of the congregation for his own benefit and to continue to harm others.

Many organisations have rules and expectations around the behaviour of their members, and rightly so. Church discipline extends way beyond that, and in Mars Hill style terms, extends not just to the leadership laying down the law about what is and isn't acceptable at Mars Hill, but also dictates how other members should treat the 'disciplined party' in their own homes and in social and work spheres totally unconnected to the church activity. In these kinds of situations, members who choose not to follow the directives can find themselves also subject to church discipline. In an environment where church members work, socialise and worship within the same circle of people, a church shunning can ruin someone's entire life.

[GenerationCedarchip]

From the following post on the forum, they didn't force contact with him, but wrote next to the whole church telling them the detail of his 'sin' and giving instructions on how not to have 'fellowship' with him thereafter.

I'd be seeing a lawyer in any case. :shock:

Yikes. All of this, the contract and the response to leaving the fellowship, sound very much like the church discipline stuff that I recell from the old fundie church. It didn't happen often, but when it did, it was a huge scandal.

Also, I agree that cheating is a horrible thing to do, but he immediately repented and repentence caused all hell to break loose? That's just nuts.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Many organisations have rules and expectations around the behaviour of their members, and rightly so. Church discipline extends way beyond that, and in Mars Hill style terms, extends not just to the leadership laying down the law about what is and isn't acceptable at Mars Hill, but also dictates how other members should treat the 'disciplined party' in their own homes and in social and work spheres totally unconnected to the church activity. In these kinds of situations, members who choose not to follow the directives can find themselves also subject to church discipline. In an environment where church members work, socialise and worship within the same circle of people, a church shunning can ruin someone's entire life.

I disagree with that approach. Public exposure of bad behavior is one thing, but expecting people to shun someone else without knowing details seems either cult-like, or like bad teen/family drama. I once had a situation where I avoided any contact with an individual whom I knew to be a child molester (police knew but did nothing because the abuser was old and not in good health). I could not reveal why I wasn't associating with the abuser without identifying the victim, and I was required to keep the information confidential. So, I simply said, "I know that my behavior may seem rude and unusual, but you know me well enough to realize that I wouldn't be this way unless I had a very good reason. I can't tell you the reason, and please don't ask me about it." As hard as it was, I couldn't tell others to stop talking about the abuser or expect shunning without having the information.

[ladidah]

Did the fiance' consent to have her dirty laundry broadcast throughout the church? I would hate to be the constant subject for other's pity.

I agree. She must be going through a horrible time, and she doesn't need the whole church, not to mention the internet, knowing the details.

[Kitchen Princess]

I wonder if she's under discipline, too, though? She had sex with the guy.

And http://www.homeedmag.com/seelhoffvs.welch/intro.html will give you a sense of how "church discipline" can go terribly wrong.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm not sure how explicit the church newsletter was about the girlfriend, but as his sin was revealed as sexual, she must have been fairly outed by it too. I guess that was her punishment. At Mars Hill, the teaching is that women are the weaker vessel and so men hold more responsibility for sexual sin. Also the girlfriend was daughter of a leader so shunning her would probably have been more tricky.

The shunning letter was published on the Mars Hill intranet and leaked to the guy by a friend. So in that sense it was he who outed her on the internet.

[Kaylee]

It does, doesn't it. If you are leaving the church, then why should it bother you that they consider it to still be an issue? Surely if he has left that church then he has no intention of remaining in contact with them, I certainly wouldn't. In fact if they insisted upon it, I would be seeking legal action to prevent that.

In some churches, it's important because membership is transferred by letter - sort of a character reference from your old church saying you are/were a member in good standing. Leaving under discipline means that churches in fellowship with that church probably won;t accept you as a member. Granted, this carried more weight when there were smaller communities with only one church, or one of a particular denomination, in the area.

Most churches just totally screw up church discipline, either by ignoring open or unrepentant sin even among staff or leadership, or by using it to control and shame people instead of as a way for them to reconcile and be welcomed back into fellowship. I've only seen it used once and, at the time, the person involved was OK with it and made the announcement himself that he would be stepping down from a position and working out some things. We were not told to shun him or anything like that. It was also made clear that this wasn't a serious sin but more of an issue with something in our church covenant he wasn't in agreement with (ie, he broke a rule he agreed to, but it wasn't something really bad or even clearly sinful). OTOH, I have seen people ostracized from their families and communities in other churches over what often amounted to disagreeing with the pastor or a powerful family within the church, and I have seen people cover up sin when it really should have been dealt with (child and spousal abuse, molestation, stealing or doing fraudulent business with other members, cheating on a spouse, etc).

eta: The Bible verses dealing with this are Matthew 18:15-17 :

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.â€

To me, it seems like he'd already fulfilled that, by confessing to his fiancee, and went above and beyond by talking to the group leader and his friend (2 or 3 witnesses). He was obviously repentant, so going further was just a way to shame him, exert control, and spread gossip.

[Brainsample]

thewartburgwatch.com/2012/01/25/mark-driscolls-mars-hill-a-tutorial-on-spiritual-abuse/

More stuff along these lines.

I can't even read much of anything about Driscoll anymore. I just don't get him or why he's so popular.

[dcmhejbl62]

Did the fiance' consent to have her dirty laundry broadcast throughout the church? I would hate to be the constant subject for other's pity.

She's just a weak little woman; who cares whether she consents or not? At Mars Hill, REAL MEN run the show.

[Austin]

Our Mars Hill Story by Sophia is very interesting, especially in that they tried to give them the Hotel California treatment and they had never even officially joined the church! Definitely a culty thing going on there with all the control issues, etc.

Worth the read.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I was just about the snark some more about how this guy shouldn't care about what Mars Hill says and maybe it's good that he realized how nutty the church was...but I suddenly started to really think about the "reference from the church" point.

This actually has serious, real-world consequences where I live.

Believe it or not, in order to get a job in approximately 1/3 of the publicly-funded schools here - you need a reference letter from your priest. It doesn't matter what you teach - no letter, no job.

http://www.ycdsb.ca/employment/document ... efForm.pdf

[Austin]

Where is "here"? Our public schools don't give a crap about whether or where teachers go to church or what their pastor/priest/minister thinks of them.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

Blogger THAT MOM has a big discussion of Driscoll, Purity etc right now.

[Hane]

I was just about the snark some more about how this guy shouldn't care about what Mars Hill says and maybe it's good that he realized how nutty the church was...but I suddenly started to really think about the "reference from the church" point.

This actually has serious, real-world consequences where I live.

Believe it or not, in order to get a job in approximately 1/3 of the publicly-funded schools here - you need a reference letter from your priest. It doesn't matter what you teach - no letter, no job.

http://www.ycdsb.ca/employment/document ... efForm.pdf

Isn't that a link to a Catholic school site?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Yes. In Ontario, Canada, Catholic (but not any other religion's) schools are fully funded by the government. We have a large Catholic population, so that's 1/3 of the publicly-funded schools and 1/3 of the teaching jobs. Since Catholic schools are specifically given their rights by the Canadian Constitution, they are not subject to anti-discrimination laws and have the right to demand these priest references even for those working a night janitors.

[Hane]

Oh! By CA, I had a brainfreeze and thought it meant California!

[holierthanyou]

Where is "here"? Our public schools don't give a crap about whether or where teachers go to church or what their pastor/priest/minister thinks of them.

Our (Canadian) public schools don't give a crap either. However, based on treaties going back more than a hundred years, we have two gov't sponsored school boards- public and catholic school boards in each district. Our Catholic school boards are sometimes referred to as the 'separate board'. I am not Catholic, but to me it makes sense that you would need a letter of recommendation from a Catholic pastor to get a job at a Catholic school where you very likely are required to teach your grade/class the Catholic catechism.

[GenerationCedarchip]

thewartburgwatch.com/2012/01/25/mark-driscolls-mars-hill-a-tutorial-on-spiritual-abuse/

More stuff along these lines.

I can't even read much of anything about Driscoll anymore. I just don't get him or why he's so popular.

I don't get it either, but every one I know of in that church (admittedly only a few) is highly educated and well, not someone I'd picture falling for this shtick. I know someone from my high school who was on the board of her college's NOW chapter, moved out to Seattle to work for Microsoft, and is now a big Driscoll fangirl. Her FB page is something else.

[liltwinstar]

OMG, according to the wartburg article, the man in question didn't have sex with the other woman! It says he "made out" with her, which is bad behavior of course, but seems to me it should be worked out between him and his fiancee (and by "worked out" I mean handled however the two of them choose to...if they break up, that's understandable, if they stay together and try to rebuild trust that's their choice). I'm gobsmacked that he has to write up his entire sexual history for his pastor over the fact that he kissed another woman!

Way to blow things way way out of proportion...

[NurseNell]

Cheating on someone is a shit thing to do. It's also none of Mark Driscoll's business. He is such a pervert - he is WAY too interested in the intimate details of other peoples' sex lives. I think this is less about church discipline and more about Mark getting his rocks off by 1.) Hearing all about sexual encounters. 2.) Feeling he has control over people's sexual actions.

No kidding. This is so creepy.

[NurseNell]

I cannot imagine why anyone, moral or sinful, would want to remain in a church that treats people this way.

I don't get that either. I'd be out the door in a New York minute.

[NurseNell]

I was just about the snark some more about how this guy shouldn't care about what Mars Hill says and maybe it's good that he realized how nutty the church was...but I suddenly started to really think about the "reference from the church" point.

This actually has serious, real-world consequences where I live.

Believe it or not, in order to get a job in approximately 1/3 of the publicly-funded schools here - you need a reference letter from your priest. It doesn't matter what you teach - no letter, no job.

http://www.ycdsb.ca/employment/document ... efForm.pdf

What you linked to is a job application to teach in a Catholic school.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Our (Canadian) public schools don't give a crap either. However, based on treaties going back more than a hundred years, we have two gov't sponsored school boards- public and catholic school boards in each district. Our Catholic school boards are sometimes referred to as the 'separate board'. I am not Catholic, but to me it makes sense that you would need a letter of recommendation from a Catholic pastor to get a job at a Catholic school where you very likely are required to teach your grade/class the Catholic catechism.

It's not something that applies to those who teach religion class. ALL employees, regardless of what they do, have to get a recommendation from their priest.

For most of them, once they get that letter, that's the end of that. However, the school board has the legal right to fire them for "denominational cause".

http://www.fieldlaw.com/articles/BAV_Ca ... oolsP2.pdf

This means that in Toronto, in 2012, 1/3 of teachers paid entirely by taxpayers can potentially be fired for things like adultery (which happened to one client of mine, after her ex made a formal complaint), or getting pregnant out of wedlock, or entering into a same-sex marriage.