Domestic violence within our plain culture?

[Ken]

A word of caution regarding making a private list of offenders available to congregations or entities:
Back in perhaps the mid to late 70's, a Church of Christ congregation in the small town nearest our home (Collinsville, Oklahoma) expelled a woman for unrepentant adultery. In order to alert other CoC congregations, they sent out a letter, explaining the reasons for her expulsion from their congregation. She sued for defamation of character or slander, and won. The fines against the congregation and were so severe that it resulted in the closing of the church.
I don't have any suggestions as to how this could have been handled in a way that would have not resulting in the same outcome. But if an organization (such as a denomination) was charged with an "offense" of this type, and lost in court, the fallout would be huge. I'm also not in any way suggesting that one should not take all possible measures to protect other possible future victims from any type of immoral behavior. Only a warning that steps such as maintaining a private "offenders list" should be done with special care and foresight.

I am personally ambivalent about the usefulness of private offender lists, as I think any purported utility of such lists may be offset by their tendency to concentrate power and their high potential for abuse by bad actors for purposes like blackmail. Even if I fully trust the keepers of such a list, deciding on the criteria for who gets added to it, what information is included, and how long someone stays there seems like a minefield, and more so the more centralized such a list were to be. An offender list based on clearly defined and defensible inclusion criteria, available to the public, seems like an improvement not only because it eliminates the blackmail potential but also because it allows those listed the opportunity to challenge their inclusion if they wish.

I don't profess to know how a public list like this would be best implemented either, and I imagine any attempt to implement such a list would be fraught with pitfalls and loudly denounced by some people, including, naturally, everyone listed. For this reason and others, I think the best way for churches to stay informed about dangerous or predatory members or former members is to cultivate healthy informal communication networks among the leaders of alert and discerning autonomous congregations.

More reason to simply stick to tracking of behavior that is actually criminal and to report unlawful activity to the authorities rather than clandestinely trying to deal with it "in-house".

Sex offender registries can themselves be problematic. But they are maintained by the state rather than private entities.

We are all sinners and I don't think it is the role of the Church or even Christian to maintain a dossier of the history of the sins of every church member. The Catholics have it right with the sanctity of the confessional and absolution of sins.

That said, criminal activity is something different. Crime should be addressed by the state. Sin should be addressed by the Church. And those things that are both crimes and sins should be addressed by both the church and state.

By the way, I'm curious. What is "unrepentant adultery"?

Is it a married woman committing serial adultery with lots of different married or single men?
Is it a married woman leaving one husband for a different man and the church not recognizing the divorce or separation and insisting that she return to her first husband as some conservative churches teach?
Is it a single woman who is simply promiscuous and sleeping with married men in which case it is technically the men committing adultery not the woman>

[Neto]

A word of caution regarding making a private list of offenders available to congregations or entities:
Back in perhaps the mid to late 70's, a Church of Christ congregation in the small town nearest our home (Collinsville, Oklahoma) expelled a woman for unrepentant adultery. In order to alert other CoC congregations, they sent out a letter, explaining the reasons for her expulsion from their congregation. She sued for defamation of character or slander, and won. The fines against the congregation and were so severe that it resulted in the closing of the church.
I don't have any suggestions as to how this could have been handled in a way that would have not resulting in the same outcome. But if an organization (such as a denomination) was charged with an "offense" of this type, and lost in court, the fallout would be huge. I'm also not in any way suggesting that one should not take all possible measures to protect other possible future victims from any type of immoral behavior. Only a warning that steps such as maintaining a private "offenders list" should be done with special care and foresight.

The idea that a routine expulsion for sin could lead to the subject successfully suing the church into oblivion certainly raises a novel set of conderations, and it really makes me curious about the details. Defamation suits in the United States are famously hard to win compared to almost anywhere else in the world (even more true in the 70s than now), and typically require the plaintiff to convince a judge or jury that

1. The claims made by the defendant about the plaintiff were objectively false,
2. The defendant knew at the time that the claims were false, or was subsequently informed of that fact yet refused to retract said falsehoods, and
3. The falsehoods spread by the defendant materially harmed the plaintiff, through significant reputational damage, loss of income or employment opportunities, etc.

In other words, while it's certainly possible that an expelled American church member won massive damages against a church for defamation without providing proof that the church was in fact lying about her, it would be an extremely unusual event and a flagrant miscarriage of justice by a court system which has historically tended to side with free expression to a fault, especially when religious organizations are involved.

Do you happen to have any publicly available documentation of this case?

Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville

Invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress were some of the things she claimed.

Thank you for finding that. The date was later than I recalled. I do think that this case may be instructive in reference to any proposal of keeping a private register of offenders to be made available to any other congregation's leadership, especially where the offense is one that is not illegal in the secular court or law (e.g. adultery, general immorality).
[Although I grew up in that community, and probably had interactions with some members of the congregation in question, I do not recall knowing any of those in leadership there, so I could not put forward any conjecture as to their actual motivations at any point during this process. Our MB congregation did not consider CoC people to be Christian in the sense that their members were sometimes the object of our evangelistic efforts. But I think that I could say that our members did, on the whole (that is, in general), consider the court's actions in the matter to have been a violation of Church--State separation law under the constitution. In that sense it was an alarming outcome.]

[Ken]

If you actually read the Oklahoma court filing (in the link above) as I just did, the story is somewhat different. None of it was about maintaining a list of sexual predators for the purpose of protecting children or other potential victims of abuse.

First, there was no adultery. It was about a single woman who had a boyfriend she was sleeping with and the church disapproved because they were not married.

When the church leaders confronted her and told her that they were going to reveal her private relationship to the entire congregation she voluntarily resigned from the church, contacted an attorney, and asked the church not to air her private business in public. Because it was a small town, a public denunciation in one church would rapidly spread through the entire town. Even though she had resigned her membership and disassociated herself from the church, the church leaders refused and went ahead with their public shaming. Here is an excerpt from the legal filing above

¶8 On September 25, 1981 Parishioner wrote the Elders a letter imploring them not to mention her name in church except to tell the congregation that she had withdrawn from membership. The Elders ignored Parishioner's requests. On September 27 [775 P.2d 769] they read to the congregation the September 21 letter they had sent to Parishioner. During the same service the Elders advised the congregation to contact Parishioner and to encourage her to repent and return to the Church. The Elders also told the congregation that should their attempts fail, the scriptures Parishioner had violated would be read aloud at the next service and the withdrawal of fellowship proceeding would begin.

¶9 Parishioner met with one of the Elders personally and again attempted to dissuade him from divulging her private life to the congregation. The Elder told her that withdrawing membership from the Church of Christ was not only doctrinally impossible but it could not halt the disciplinary sanction being carried out against her. The Church of Christ believes that all its members are a family; one can be born into a family but can never truly withdraw from it. A Church of Christ member can voluntarily join the church's flock but cannot then disassociate oneself from it.

¶10 According to one of the Elders, Parishioner was publicly branded a fornicator when the scriptures she had violated were recited to the Collinsville Church of Christ congregation on October 4. As part of the disciplinary process the same information about Parishioner's transgressions was sent to four other area Church of Christ congregations to be read aloud during services. [/list]

What the court actually found was that not only is freedom of religion and freedom to worship enshrined in the First Amendment, but so also is the freedom to disassociate from religion. And that the Church of Christ violated her rights by refusing to acknowledge her decision to withdraw her membership and disassociate from the church, and continuing to apply public church "discipline" to her even though she was no longer a member and no longer wished to have any association with that church.

The court found:

WHEN PARISHIONER WITHDREW HER MEMBERSHIP FROM THE CHURCH OF CHRIST AND THEREBY WITHDREW HER CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP IN WHICH SHE HAD IMPLICITLY AGREED TO SUBMIT TO ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION, THOSE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS THEREAFTER TAKEN BY THE ELDERS AGAINST PARISHIONER, WHICH ACTIVELY INVOLVED HER IN THE CHURCH'S WILL AND COMMAND, WERE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT [775 P.2d 778] PROTECTION AND WERE THE PROPER SUBJECT OF STATE REGULATION.

Which seems reasonable to me. This was about the church continuing to meddle in her private life and invade her privacy after she had severed all relationship with the church and requested that they stop.

[jahertz]

Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville

Invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress were some of the things she claimed.

The above text seems to have some omissions, probably from automated processing, that make it difficult to read. I found this one, which seems to be more complete so far: https://casetext.com/case/guinn-v-churc ... llinsville

It appears this case is the OK Supreme Court overturning the lower court's ruling for the plaintiff. I'm inclined to think the OK Supreme Court made the right call here, but I'm still working through the text for the full details.

It was news to me that, according to the CoC leaders as cited in this document, the CoC holds that withdrawing one's membership is permanently impossible. You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave...

Edit: I just read the summary newly posted above, and according to that it appears I may be reading this ruling incorrectly. I'll refrain from commenting further until I've finished reviewing it.

[Ken]

It was news to me that, according to the CoC leaders as cited in this document, the CoC holds that withdrawing one's membership is permanently impossible. You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave...

Muslims believe the same thing. Under Sharia law, rescinding one's Muslim faith is considered "Apostasy" and is a criminal act in every Muslim country. Saudi Arabia executes people for apostasy: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saud ... S620150224

Thankfully we do things differently here. Not only are we free to join any religion, we are also free to leave it. Or we should be.

It is one thing for a church to keep your name on the church rolls like the Mormons and Catholics do, even if you leave the church. But otherwise leave people alone. It's another thing to continue to pursue people and continue to meddle in their lives after they have resigned from the church and asked to be left alone.

[Neto]

It was news to me that, according to the CoC leaders as cited in this document, the CoC holds that withdrawing one's membership is permanently impossible. You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave...

Welcome to the Hotel California.

[ohio jones]

I do think that this case may be instructive in reference to any proposal of keeping a private register of offenders to be made available to any other congregation's leadership, especially where the offense is one that is not illegal in the secular court or law (e.g. adultery, general immorality).

If you actually read the Oklahoma court filing (in the link above) as I just did, the story is somewhat different. None of it was about maintaining a list of sexual predators for the purpose of protecting children or other potential victims of abuse.

You missed this part:

¶10 ... As part of the disciplinary process the same information about Parishioner's transgressions was sent to four other area Church of Christ congregations to be read aloud during services.

[Neto]

I do think that this case may be instructive in reference to any proposal of keeping a private register of offenders to be made available to any other congregation's leadership, especially where the offense is one that is not illegal in the secular court or law (e.g. adultery, general immorality).

If you actually read the Oklahoma court filing (in the link above) as I just did, the story is somewhat different. None of it was about maintaining a list of sexual predators for the purpose of protecting children or other potential victims of abuse.

You missed this part:

¶10 ... As part of the disciplinary process the same information about Parishioner's transgressions was sent to four other area Church of Christ congregations to be read aloud during services.

I mentioned that in my first comment about this case (see my post of 10:44 AM today). I didn't mention the number other congregations - I didn't remember detail of the case like that all these years later, but that they had sent letters to other Church of Christ congregations, to alert them of the reasons why she was being disciplined. (If I wasn't clear on this before, this was in the small town closest to where I grew up. Actually just 3 1/2 miles away.) This was, in fact, the whole reason I mentioned this case at all, because it seemed to me that the idea to which I was responding dealt with suggested privately maintained list of "offenders" whose conduct was not illegal, and would therefore not be in any law enforcement offenders list.

[Ken]

I do think that this case may be instructive in reference to any proposal of keeping a private register of offenders to be made available to any other congregation's leadership, especially where the offense is one that is not illegal in the secular court or law (e.g. adultery, general immorality).

If you actually read the Oklahoma court filing (in the link above) as I just did, the story is somewhat different. None of it was about maintaining a list of sexual predators for the purpose of protecting children or other potential victims of abuse.

You missed this part:

¶10 ... As part of the disciplinary process the same information about Parishioner's transgressions was sent to four other area Church of Christ congregations to be read aloud during services.

Like I said, it wasn't about "protecting" other congregations from this "predator" or maintaining lists. She left the church and wasn't trying to move to one of those other churches.

They simply wanted to shame her more by publicizing her "sins" to a wider audience than just the one church. As they said, it was about 'discipline". And it was about trying to "discipline" a woman who was no longer even a church member and wanted nothing to do with them.

I wonder if this denomination is just as diligent about publicly exposing men (and men in leadership) who are accused of the far more serious sin and crime of sexual abuse.

[Neto]

A word of caution regarding making a private list of offenders available to congregations or entities:
Back in perhaps the mid to late 70's, a Church of Christ congregation in the small town nearest our home (Collinsville, Oklahoma) expelled a woman for unrepentant adultery. In order to alert other CoC congregations, they sent out a letter, explaining the reasons for her expulsion from their congregation. She sued for defamation of character or slander, and won. The fines against the congregation and were so severe that it resulted in the closing of the church.
I don't have any suggestions as to how this could have been handled in a way that would have not resulting in the same outcome. But if an organization (such as a denomination) was charged with an "offense" of this type, and lost in court, the fallout would be huge. I'm also not in any way suggesting that one should not take all possible measures to protect other possible future victims from any type of immoral behavior. Only a warning that steps such as maintaining a private "offenders list" should be done with special care and foresight.

I am personally ambivalent about the usefulness of private offender lists, as I think any purported utility of such lists may be offset by their tendency to concentrate power and their high potential for abuse by bad actors for purposes like blackmail. Even if I fully trust the keepers of such a list, deciding on the criteria for who gets added to it, what information is included, and how long someone stays there seems like a minefield, and more so the more centralized such a list were to be. An offender list based on clearly defined and defensible inclusion criteria, available to the public, seems like an improvement not only because it eliminates the blackmail potential but also because it allows those listed the opportunity to challenge their inclusion if they wish.

I don't profess to know how a public list like this would be best implemented either, and I imagine any attempt to implement such a list would be fraught with pitfalls and loudly denounced by some people, including, naturally, everyone listed. For this reason and others, I think the best way for churches to stay informed about dangerous or predatory members or former members is to cultivate healthy informal communication networks among the leaders of alert and discerning autonomous congregations.

More reason to simply stick to tracking of behavior that is actually criminal and to report unlawful activity to the authorities rather than clandestinely trying to deal with it "in-house".

Sex offender registries can themselves be problematic. But they are maintained by the state rather than private entities.

We are all sinners and I don't think it is the role of the Church or even Christian to maintain a dossier of the history of the sins of every church member. The Catholics have it right with the sanctity of the confessional and absolution of sins.

That said, criminal activity is something different. Crime should be addressed by the state. Sin should be addressed by the Church. And those things that are both crimes and sins should be addressed by both the church and state.

By the way, I'm curious. What is "unrepentant adultery"?

1.) Is it a married woman committing serial adultery with lots of different married or single men?
2.) Is it a married woman leaving one husband for a different man and the church not recognizing the divorce or separation and insisting that she return to her first husband as some conservative churches teach?
3.) Is it a single woman who is simply promiscuous and sleeping with married men in which case it is technically the men committing adultery not the woman>

Sorry, I didn't see your question until now.
I numbered your "options" to make my response clearer.
I am from MB background (and theologically mostly still conservative MB), and since the MB follow the teachings of Menno Simons on the issue of divorce & remarriage, # 2 is automatically out.
So it could be either # 1. or # 2. I do not agree with the literalistic distinction that some make between 'fornication' and 'adultery', certainly not in terms of this discussion or topic. (That is, I do not make any distinction between the two.)

So, to give my own definition, "unrepentant adultery" is repeated sexual immorality of which the person refuses to repent. It doesn't matter if the person is married or unmarried, and whether they are committing this sin with a married or single person, or if they have ever been married before at all, or whether they are separated, divorced, or even if they are a widow or widower.

Regarding behavior which is criminal activity in the secular legal system, that is not what I was responding to. A suggestion had been made that for "non-criminal" but sinful conduct, a privately maintained "offenders list" could be kept, and perhaps by implication, this list would be shared or circulated as needed. (Otherwise, why make such a list?) It was only that scenario to which my comment regarding this case was directed. I mentioned this case, which I recalled from when it happened in our community (near Collinsville, OK), because it fit that criteria - the person in question was engaged in immoral activity that was non-criminal in nature, and was persistently unrepentant.