Are churches responsible for abusive ex-members?

[Josh]

Generally speaking, a church such as the Catholic church isn't legally responsible for the conduct of its members outside of the church organisation. For example, let's say a person is a baptised and confirmed Catholic who then goes and engages in very disgraceful conduct, such as beating his wife, abusing his children, or engaging in armed robbery.

There may be applicable laws that members of leadership are "mandatory reporters" for certain types of crimes if they become aware of them. However, let's discuss just how accountable church leadership is for the general behaviour of its members, particularly of members who are expelled, excommunicated, or have expressed a desire to separate from a church.

It seems that in Amish and plain Mennonite circles, there is an expectation that churches are responsible for 100% of the conduct of their members. For example, if someone abuses their children, it is somehow considered the church's fault. This burden is not, generally speaking, applied to other denominations. If someone attends (for example) a non-denominational church and it comes to light years later they neglected or abused their children, it is not automatically the fault of whomever was in leadership of that church at the time.

Is this a fair responsibility? Do we treat other denominations this way? And how exactly should the church exert its authority over such a member if they express a desire to be separated from the church?

For the purpose of this discussion, misconduct by ordained leaders such as ministers or lay leaders such as Sunday school teachers is not on topic. Please discuss when a lay member engages in disgraceful or sinful conduct. As nonresistant Anabaptists, we cannot force someone to obey. And it is unclear if we have a duty to run to the police and report every single thing we see happen.

[Ken]

I would suggest that conservative churches only do this for a certain subset of abusive, sinful, or illegal behaviors.

I haven't heard of congregations expelling members for things like tax evasion, violations of labor laws, exploitation of workers (wage theft), violations of environmental laws, etc. Except perhaps unless the offense is so egregious that it results in prison such as the example of the Trickling Springs Creamery fraud.

[Sudsy]

I guess I'm too old to understand. If one is an ex-member, then what possibly does a church have to do with how they live their lives ?

[Ken]

I guess I'm too old to understand. If one is an ex-member, then what possibly does a church have to do with how they live their lives ?

Presumably the church is responsible for making them into an ex-member.

[Neto]

Generally speaking, a church such as the Catholic church isn't legally responsible for the conduct of its members outside of the church organisation. For example, let's say a person is a baptised and confirmed Catholic who then goes and engages in very disgraceful conduct, such as beating his wife, abusing his children, or engaging in armed robbery.

There may be applicable laws that members of leadership are "mandatory reporters" for certain types of crimes if they become aware of them. However, let's discuss just how accountable church leadership is for the general behaviour of its members, particularly of members who are expelled, excommunicated, or have expressed a desire to separate from a church.

It seems that in Amish and plain Mennonite circles, there is an expectation that churches are responsible for 100% of the conduct of their members. For example, if someone abuses their children, it is somehow considered the church's fault. This burden is not, generally speaking, applied to other denominations. If someone attends (for example) a non-denominational church and it comes to light years later they neglected or abused their children, it is not automatically the fault of whomever was in leadership of that church at the time.

Is this a fair responsibility? Do we treat other denominations this way? And how exactly should the church exert its authority over such a member if they express a desire to be separated from the church?

For the purpose of this discussion, misconduct by ordained leaders such as ministers or lay leaders such as Sunday school teachers is not on topic. Please discuss when a lay member engages in disgraceful or sinful conduct. As nonresistant Anabaptists, we cannot force someone to obey. And it is unclear if we have a duty to run to the police and report every single thing we see happen.

I think that part of this has to do with the ethnic aspect of Mennonite & Amish (as well as Hutterite, and I suppose some others, like the German Baptists) surnames. So a person by the name of 'Yoder', 'Raber', etc., or in my background, Reimer, Baltzer, Wedel, etc - so someone with a name like that shows up in the news for some horrible crime. We feel responsible to some degree, because that person is "one of our people". (In a past discussion here, someone told me that we 'Russian Mennonites' do this more than the people from Swiss Brethren background. I don't know, but I have felt that "ethnic/religious guilt" myself. BUT, God has no grandchildren.)

[Josh]

I would suggest that conservative churches only do this for a certain subset of abusive, sinful, or illegal behaviors.

I haven't heard of congregations expelling members for things like tax evasion, violations of labor laws, exploitation of workers (wage theft), violations of environmental laws, etc. Except perhaps unless the offense is so egregious that it results in prison such as the example of the Trickling Springs Creamery fraud.

I certainly have heard of church discipline for tax fraud, and also for unpaid bills to small contractors, which is in practice the same thing as unpaid wages.

I’m not sure what you mean by “wage theft”. If you claim CMs are engaging in “exploitation of workers” do you mean they are doing something illegal?

[Josh]

I guess I'm too old to understand. If one is an ex-member, then what possibly does a church have to do with how they live their lives ?

That’s what I’m asking.

Certain organisations such as the MAP List are making a great deal of hay about ex-members who later were accused of all kinds of abuse, and complaining that church leaders didn’t somehow do something about it.

[steve-in-kville]

I guess I'm too old to understand. If one is an ex-member, then what possibly does a church have to do with how they live their lives ?

Presumably the church is responsible for making them into an ex-member.

I, too, think this all they can really do.

To that end, I am aware of two occasions where the police should have been contacted as they went on to re-offend. One was a stalking/peeping Tom issue, the other was embellishment embezzlement from an employer. Both men were disfellowshipped, eventually taken back in, and later disfellowshipped again.

The one individual was later offered membership, but only if he agreed to move out of the area to another church district. makes total sense, I know

[Ken]

I guess I'm too old to understand. If one is an ex-member, then what possibly does a church have to do with how they live their lives ?

That’s what I’m asking.

Certain organisations such as the MAP List are making a great deal of hay about ex-members who later were accused of all kinds of abuse, and complaining that church leaders didn’t somehow do something about it.

Personally I tend to think it is a cop-out to expect church leaders to be the only ones to deal with this sort of thing. Or administrators/supervisors if you are in a secular setting.

If I am aware of a fellow church member or co-worker or even a neighbor who's actions are harming others then I think I have a responsibility to step in as appropriate and not just look the other way or expect others to deal with it. That might mean elevating things to church leaders or supervisors, or other authorities. Or it might not depending on the circumstances.

I thought the MAP list was more about people in positions of church leadership or authority who were kept there through the inactions/coverup of the church. Like John Howard Yoder, for example. I wasn't aware that it was used to call out random people who aren't in any position of church authority and just happen to have Menno roots of some sort.

[Josh]

I guess I'm too old to understand. If one is an ex-member, then what possibly does a church have to do with how they live their lives ?

That’s what I’m asking.

Certain organisations such as the MAP List are making a great deal of hay about ex-members who later were accused of all kinds of abuse, and complaining that church leaders didn’t somehow do something about it.

Personally I tend to think it is a cop-out to expect church leaders to be the only ones to deal with this sort of thing. Or administrators/supervisors if you are in a secular setting.

If I am aware of a fellow church member or co-worker or even a neighbor who's actions are harming others then I think I have a responsibility to step in as appropriate and not just look the other way or expect others to deal with it. That might mean elevating things to church leaders or supervisors, or other authorities. Or it might not depending on the circumstances.

I thought the MAP list was more about people in positions of church leadership or authority who were kept there through the inactions/coverup of the church. Like John Howard Yoder, for example. I wasn't aware that it was used to call out random people who aren't in any position of church authority and just happen to have Menno roots of some sort.

At this point they have graduated to compiling lists of any time someone who was a member or ex member committed certain crimes, and then if the leadership might have known about it.

Certainly holding to a rather high standard… it basically places an expectation that pastors start acting like some kind of adjunct detectives. Perhaps pastors should read people their Miranda rights before speaking to them?