Two reports, and the church's perspective. Sad indeed.....
Can church divulge its members' sins?
By Michael Grabell and Jeffrey Weiss
The Dallas Morning News
DALLAS — Does a church have the right to publicly reveal a person's private sins? A Dallas court is being asked to decide whether Watermark Community Church can do exactly that to a man and a woman identified in court records as "John Doe" and "Jane Roe."
Their attorney says the pair thought they had revealed their sins to Watermark's pastor confidentially and that their behavior should not be made public.
Church officials say they are only following a process of church discipline outlined in the Gospel of Matthew and written into the church's bylaws.
"Basically, we're being sued because we're seeking to love 'John Doe' in accordance with the principles outlined by God's word," said the pastor, the Rev. Todd Wagner.
Neither church officials nor the pair's attorney would specify the behavior involved.
Leaders of the Dallas church said they recently became aware that "John Doe," who joined the church more than a year ago, was "having some struggles in his walk with Christ," Wagner said.
Church elders began the process of "care and correction" described in Matthew: Confront the person one to one, then with several others, then "tell it to the church." At every step, the person is asked to stop the offending behavior.
In this case, the man refused the private interventions and said he was quitting the church, church officials said. But Watermark's bylaws say a member "may not resign from membership in an attempt to avoid such care and correction."
Watermark's next step would have been to send more than a dozen letters to people who know "John Doe" — half to Watermark members and half to members of other churches who know and have worked with him.
That's when the lawsuit was filed.
"The basis of the lawsuit was the church wanted to go outside of the church and the community at large, including potentially even their employers," said Jeff Tillotson, attorney for the man and woman.
They got a temporary restraining order April 28, preventing the church from releasing information about them. But the order was dismissed May 5 by Associate Judge Sheryl McFarlin after Watermark's lawyers argued it violated the church's right to freely exercise its religion.
The case is winding its way through appeals. Tillotson said the case holds major implications for church members in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
"The typical notion of a Dallasite — that if you don't like a church, you can just leave, and that's that — is apparently not shared by some of these churches," he said. "And then when you say I want to get off this merry-go-round, their response is you can't quit to avoid discipline."
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003025483_confess29.html
Is Public Shaming by the Church Legal?
Texas Appeals Court Will Decide if Church Can Release Private Info
May 28, 2006 — - A female member of the Watermark Community Church, a non-denominational evangelical church in Dallas, Texas, reached out to her pastor after her husband had an alleged affair with another woman.
But when the husband, identified only as "John Doe," failed to reconcile with his wife, he said the church's minister, Todd Wagner, shamed him from the pulpit.
And the minister didn't stop there. When the husband tried to resign from the church, Wagner allegedly threatened to mail a dozen letters -- half to Watermark Community Church members and the other half to members of other churches who know and have worked with John Doe -- detailing the alleged affair.
Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas organization that fights for religious liberties, said the church is behaving this way because it feels it must save the marriage.
"They love this individual," Shackelford said. "They love the people around him and want to do everything they can to bring him back into the fold and get his life straight on path."
John Doe does not feel the love. He is suing the church over the letters and said he is no longer a member. But the church says its covenants, which Doe signed, does not allow members to leave the fold.
"All members submit themselves and may not resign from membership in an attempt to avoid such correction," Shackelford said.
What Secrets Are Sacred?
This case has caused some to question what a church is and what secrets -- if any -- can be kept sacred.
"What you share with a pastor in confidence has just an almost sacred quality to it," said Robin Lovin, a Methodist minister and ethics professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
In his book, "Christian Ethics: An Essential Guide," Lovin writes that people would not seek help from pastors in their church without the promise of confidentiality.
"That is what encouraged people to bring their problems to people who can help and if they can't trust that confidentiality then of course they won't seek assistance," Lovin said.
A Texas appeals court will decide whether the Watermark Community Church went too far in its attempt to save a church member's marriage. A lower court has already ruled that the church is free to release private information about its members. John Doe's attorney says his client is now considering a civil lawsuit against the church for slander.
ABC News' Mike von Fremd reported this story for "Good Morning America." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2013910
Watermark Community Church
As a result of the interest and confusion generated by recent media accounts of a lawsuit filed by a Watermark member against the church, it is our desire to clearly summarize pertinent facts. Our purpose in sharing these facts is to allow those wanting to understand our actions the opportunity to deal with truths and not be forced to speculate.
“Mr. Doe and Mrs. Doe” are married and are members of Watermark.
“Mrs. Doe” came forward asking for help related to challenges in her marital relationship.
“Mr. Doe or Ms. Roe” did not reveal information or participate in a “private confessional” with any Watermark staff that resulted in this process.
As part of the process, “Mr. Doe and Mrs. Doe” included other people, both members at Watermark and others outside Watermark, in the discussions regarding the marital struggle. There was never a one on one confessional between Mr. Doe and Todd Wagner, or Mr. Doe and any other staff or church member that initiated the Matthew 18 process, as has been reported in the news. As “Mrs. Doe” sought help to repair the marriage, she approached the church and as a result the church continued to reach out to “Mr. Doe” and later “Ms. Roe” in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17.
The final step in the Matthew 18 process was to close the communications with those that were personally involved with “Mr. and Mrs. Doe and Ms. Roe” and to clarify the church’s need to separate from “Mr. Doe’s” continued behavior. The lawsuit was filed in April by “Mr. Doe” and “Ms. Roe” to prevent this letter from being sent to those people already involved with “Mr. Doe and Ms. Roe.” There was never a planned letter to the entire congregation -- indeed, close to 100% of the membership knew nothing of “Mr. and Mrs. Doe and Ms. Roe” until the lawsuit was filed.
A temporary restraining order was entered without Watermark being present to challenge any representations made at the hearing. After a hearing with all present, the Court dismissed the case. The dismissal was upheld by a district judge days later. With the case now twice dismissed, “Mr. Doe and Ms. Roe” filed an appeal with the Dallas Court of Appeals, which is currently pending.
As in any similar case, we encourage all followers of Christ in relationship with such individuals, to continue in prayer for them, while calling them to a true knowledge of the Lord, repentance in their sin and reconciliation to: God, their spouse, and other damaged relationships – including the church (Watermark and universal body of Christ). We eagerly await the day that “Mr. Doe” chooses to reconcile. We long to “forgive and comfort him, [that he may not] be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” and we may “reaffirm our love for him” (2 Corinthians 2:7-8). We ask that you continue to love “Mr. Doe” along with us in accordance with scripture, urging him to seek restoration in all his relationships.
Colossians 4:2-6,
The Elders of Watermark Community Church
www.watermarkcommunity2.org/pages/legal
Can church divulge its members' sins?
By Michael Grabell and Jeffrey Weiss
The Dallas Morning News
DALLAS — Does a church have the right to publicly reveal a person's private sins? A Dallas court is being asked to decide whether Watermark Community Church can do exactly that to a man and a woman identified in court records as "John Doe" and "Jane Roe."
Their attorney says the pair thought they had revealed their sins to Watermark's pastor confidentially and that their behavior should not be made public.
Church officials say they are only following a process of church discipline outlined in the Gospel of Matthew and written into the church's bylaws.
"Basically, we're being sued because we're seeking to love 'John Doe' in accordance with the principles outlined by God's word," said the pastor, the Rev. Todd Wagner.
Neither church officials nor the pair's attorney would specify the behavior involved.
Leaders of the Dallas church said they recently became aware that "John Doe," who joined the church more than a year ago, was "having some struggles in his walk with Christ," Wagner said.
Church elders began the process of "care and correction" described in Matthew: Confront the person one to one, then with several others, then "tell it to the church." At every step, the person is asked to stop the offending behavior.
In this case, the man refused the private interventions and said he was quitting the church, church officials said. But Watermark's bylaws say a member "may not resign from membership in an attempt to avoid such care and correction."
Watermark's next step would have been to send more than a dozen letters to people who know "John Doe" — half to Watermark members and half to members of other churches who know and have worked with him.
That's when the lawsuit was filed.
"The basis of the lawsuit was the church wanted to go outside of the church and the community at large, including potentially even their employers," said Jeff Tillotson, attorney for the man and woman.
They got a temporary restraining order April 28, preventing the church from releasing information about them. But the order was dismissed May 5 by Associate Judge Sheryl McFarlin after Watermark's lawyers argued it violated the church's right to freely exercise its religion.
The case is winding its way through appeals. Tillotson said the case holds major implications for church members in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
"The typical notion of a Dallasite — that if you don't like a church, you can just leave, and that's that — is apparently not shared by some of these churches," he said. "And then when you say I want to get off this merry-go-round, their response is you can't quit to avoid discipline."
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003025483_confess29.html
Is Public Shaming by the Church Legal?
Texas Appeals Court Will Decide if Church Can Release Private Info
May 28, 2006 — - A female member of the Watermark Community Church, a non-denominational evangelical church in Dallas, Texas, reached out to her pastor after her husband had an alleged affair with another woman.
But when the husband, identified only as "John Doe," failed to reconcile with his wife, he said the church's minister, Todd Wagner, shamed him from the pulpit.
And the minister didn't stop there. When the husband tried to resign from the church, Wagner allegedly threatened to mail a dozen letters -- half to Watermark Community Church members and the other half to members of other churches who know and have worked with John Doe -- detailing the alleged affair.
Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas organization that fights for religious liberties, said the church is behaving this way because it feels it must save the marriage.
"They love this individual," Shackelford said. "They love the people around him and want to do everything they can to bring him back into the fold and get his life straight on path."
John Doe does not feel the love. He is suing the church over the letters and said he is no longer a member. But the church says its covenants, which Doe signed, does not allow members to leave the fold.
"All members submit themselves and may not resign from membership in an attempt to avoid such correction," Shackelford said.
What Secrets Are Sacred?
This case has caused some to question what a church is and what secrets -- if any -- can be kept sacred.
"What you share with a pastor in confidence has just an almost sacred quality to it," said Robin Lovin, a Methodist minister and ethics professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
In his book, "Christian Ethics: An Essential Guide," Lovin writes that people would not seek help from pastors in their church without the promise of confidentiality.
"That is what encouraged people to bring their problems to people who can help and if they can't trust that confidentiality then of course they won't seek assistance," Lovin said.
A Texas appeals court will decide whether the Watermark Community Church went too far in its attempt to save a church member's marriage. A lower court has already ruled that the church is free to release private information about its members. John Doe's attorney says his client is now considering a civil lawsuit against the church for slander.
ABC News' Mike von Fremd reported this story for "Good Morning America." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2013910
Watermark Community Church
As a result of the interest and confusion generated by recent media accounts of a lawsuit filed by a Watermark member against the church, it is our desire to clearly summarize pertinent facts. Our purpose in sharing these facts is to allow those wanting to understand our actions the opportunity to deal with truths and not be forced to speculate.
“Mr. Doe and Mrs. Doe” are married and are members of Watermark.
“Mrs. Doe” came forward asking for help related to challenges in her marital relationship.
“Mr. Doe or Ms. Roe” did not reveal information or participate in a “private confessional” with any Watermark staff that resulted in this process.
As part of the process, “Mr. Doe and Mrs. Doe” included other people, both members at Watermark and others outside Watermark, in the discussions regarding the marital struggle. There was never a one on one confessional between Mr. Doe and Todd Wagner, or Mr. Doe and any other staff or church member that initiated the Matthew 18 process, as has been reported in the news. As “Mrs. Doe” sought help to repair the marriage, she approached the church and as a result the church continued to reach out to “Mr. Doe” and later “Ms. Roe” in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17.
The final step in the Matthew 18 process was to close the communications with those that were personally involved with “Mr. and Mrs. Doe and Ms. Roe” and to clarify the church’s need to separate from “Mr. Doe’s” continued behavior. The lawsuit was filed in April by “Mr. Doe” and “Ms. Roe” to prevent this letter from being sent to those people already involved with “Mr. Doe and Ms. Roe.” There was never a planned letter to the entire congregation -- indeed, close to 100% of the membership knew nothing of “Mr. and Mrs. Doe and Ms. Roe” until the lawsuit was filed.
A temporary restraining order was entered without Watermark being present to challenge any representations made at the hearing. After a hearing with all present, the Court dismissed the case. The dismissal was upheld by a district judge days later. With the case now twice dismissed, “Mr. Doe and Ms. Roe” filed an appeal with the Dallas Court of Appeals, which is currently pending.
As in any similar case, we encourage all followers of Christ in relationship with such individuals, to continue in prayer for them, while calling them to a true knowledge of the Lord, repentance in their sin and reconciliation to: God, their spouse, and other damaged relationships – including the church (Watermark and universal body of Christ). We eagerly await the day that “Mr. Doe” chooses to reconcile. We long to “forgive and comfort him, [that he may not] be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” and we may “reaffirm our love for him” (2 Corinthians 2:7-8). We ask that you continue to love “Mr. Doe” along with us in accordance with scripture, urging him to seek restoration in all his relationships.
Colossians 4:2-6,
The Elders of Watermark Community Church
www.watermarkcommunity2.org/pages/legal
Comments
Now as you know this is preceded by instruction in Church discipline.
I find it a good thing to do!
Steve