Domestic violence within our plain culture?

[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.

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.

You are incorrect in your assumptions here. I heard this "come down" in real time. The leaders of that congregation were concerned that she would simply go to another Church of Christ congregation in the area. And no, they did not send that letter to any congregations of other denominations. If their objective was as you suggest - simply to further shame her in her community - then our MB congregation would have possibly also received a copy of the letter. (I say 'possibly' because we comprised a very small percentage of the community, and few if any of our members were town folk.)
Certainly the Southern Baptist congregations (by far the largest majority of that community) would have received copies. Their only objective was to protect congregations of their own denomination in the immediate area.

EDIT: This case impressed me at the time, because as I said before, we (MBs) did not really consider these CoC people to be right Christians, and they were the objective of some of our evangelistic efforts in the community. (I recall visiting with some members of the congregation in question during our door-to-door participation in the evangelistic effort called Key '73, which was, of course, in 1973.)

[Ken]

You missed this part:

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.

You are incorrect in your assumptions here. I heard this "come down" in real time. The leaders of that congregation were concerned that she would simply go to another Church of Christ congregation in the area. And no, they did not send that letter to any congregations of other denominations. If their objective was as you suggest - simply to further shame her in her community - then our MB congregation would have possibly also received a copy of the letter. (I say 'possibly' because we comprised a very small percentage of the community, and few if any of our members were town folk.)
Certainly the Southern Baptist congregations (by far the largest majority of that community) would have received copies. Their only objective was to protect congregations of their own denomination in the immediate area.

EDIT: This case impressed me at the time, because as I said before, we (MBs) did not really consider these CoC people to be right Christians, and they were the objective of some of our evangelistic efforts in the community. (I recall visiting with some members of the congregation in question during our door-to-door participation in the evangelistic effort called Key '73, which was, of course, in 1973.)

That isn't what they said in their court filings which is all I have to go by. They said it was about church discipline not protection of other congregations. Nowhere do they make the claim that this was about protecting other congregations. And they said they had the obligation and right to invade her privacy even after she left the church because no one can ever actually leave the Church of Christ. The court it seems disabused them of that notion.

If all they were concerned about was that she might try to join another congregation, all they would have needed to do is contact the other ministers and alert them. This isn't what they did. What they take copies of their "discipline" letter that they originally addressed to her and read it out loud in front of each of those other congregations. It is basically a modern day version of the Scarlet Letter.

[Neto]

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.

You are incorrect in your assumptions here. I heard this "come down" in real time. The leaders of that congregation were concerned that she would simply go to another Church of Christ congregation in the area. And no, they did not send that letter to any congregations of other denominations. If their objective was as you suggest - simply to further shame her in her community - then our MB congregation would have possibly also received a copy of the letter. (I say 'possibly' because we comprised a very small percentage of the community, and few if any of our members were town folk.)
Certainly the Southern Baptist congregations (by far the largest majority of that community) would have received copies. Their only objective was to protect congregations of their own denomination in the immediate area.

EDIT: This case impressed me at the time, because as I said before, we (MBs) did not really consider these CoC people to be right Christians, and they were the objective of some of our evangelistic efforts in the community. (I recall visiting with some members of the congregation in question during our door-to-door participation in the evangelistic effort called Key '73, which was, of course, in 1973.)

That isn't what they said in their court filings which is all I have to go by. They said it was about church discipline not protection of other congregations. Nowhere do they make the claim that this was about protecting other congregations. And they said they had the obligation and right to invade her privacy even after she left the church because no one can ever actually leave the Church of Christ. The court it seems disabused them of that notion.

If all they were concerned about was that she might try to join another congregation, all they would have needed to do is contact the other ministers and alert them. This isn't what they did. What they take copies of their "discipline" letter that they originally addressed to her and read it out loud in front of each of those other congregations.

I don't recall hearing (at the time that the case hit the news) that the letters were read in the other congregations. I also do not know where these other 4 CoC congregations were located. But there was only this ONE CoC congregation in the small town of Collinsville. I stick to my opinion that their aim was to inform their own denomination's nearby congregations. As I said, it makes no sense to say that they would attempt to shame her in her own community, if they did not inform the congregations of other denominations located right there in Collinsville. (Our church house is/was located 3 1/2 miles from town, and is now a part of the Owasso city limits. Owasso was 4 1/2 miles away at that time.)
I do need to correct one statement I made earlier. The owner/operator of the pharmacy in Collinsville was a member of the MB congregation. Oh, and come to think of it, another member owned the furniture store. The "Five & Ten" was owned by my great Uncle, but he was no longer a member of the MB congregation - they were Nazarene. I did not hear ANYTHING about this case from anyone until it went to court, and the verdict was written up in the local newspaper. I never knew that it was later appealed to the Oklahoma State supreme court, either.

[Ken]

You are incorrect in your assumptions here. I heard this "come down" in real time. The leaders of that congregation were concerned that she would simply go to another Church of Christ congregation in the area. And no, they did not send that letter to any congregations of other denominations. If their objective was as you suggest - simply to further shame her in her community - then our MB congregation would have possibly also received a copy of the letter. (I say 'possibly' because we comprised a very small percentage of the community, and few if any of our members were town folk.)
Certainly the Southern Baptist congregations (by far the largest majority of that community) would have received copies. Their only objective was to protect congregations of their own denomination in the immediate area.

EDIT: This case impressed me at the time, because as I said before, we (MBs) did not really consider these CoC people to be right Christians, and they were the objective of some of our evangelistic efforts in the community. (I recall visiting with some members of the congregation in question during our door-to-door participation in the evangelistic effort called Key '73, which was, of course, in 1973.)

That isn't what they said in their court filings which is all I have to go by. They said it was about church discipline not protection of other congregations. Nowhere do they make the claim that this was about protecting other congregations. And they said they had the obligation and right to invade her privacy even after she left the church because no one can ever actually leave the Church of Christ. The court it seems disabused them of that notion.

If all they were concerned about was that she might try to join another congregation, all they would have needed to do is contact the other ministers and alert them. This isn't what they did. What they take copies of their "discipline" letter that they originally addressed to her and read it out loud in front of each of those other congregations.

I don't recall hearing (at the time that the case hit the news) that the letters were read in the other congregations. I also do not know where these other 4 CoC congregations were located. But there was only this ONE CoC congregation in the small town of Collinsville. I stick to my opinion that their aim was to inform their own denomination's nearby congregations. As I said, it makes no sense to say that they would attempt to shame her in her own community, if they did not inform the congregations of other denominations located right there in Collinsville. (Our church house is/was located 3 1/2 miles from town, and is now a part of the Owasso city limits. Owasso was 4 1/2 miles away at that time.)
I do need to correct one statement I made earlier. The owner/operator of the pharmacy in Collinsville was a member of the MB congregation. Oh, and come to think of it, another member owned the furniture store. The "Five & Ten" was owned by my great Uncle, but he was no longer a member of the MB congregation - they were Nazarene. I did not hear ANYTHING about this case from anyone until it went to court, and the verdict was written up in the local newspaper. I never knew that it was later appealed to the Oklahoma State supreme court, either.

Obviously I wasn't there. I'm just reading from the evidence presented in the court filings above. They specifically state:

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.

So by their own words it was about branding her as a 'fornicator" and church discipline. Not about safety. This all occurred AFTER she had left the church and asked to be left alone.

[Neto]

That isn't what they said in their court filings which is all I have to go by. They said it was about church discipline not protection of other congregations. Nowhere do they make the claim that this was about protecting other congregations. And they said they had the obligation and right to invade her privacy even after she left the church because no one can ever actually leave the Church of Christ. The court it seems disabused them of that notion.

If all they were concerned about was that she might try to join another congregation, all they would have needed to do is contact the other ministers and alert them. This isn't what they did. What they take copies of their "discipline" letter that they originally addressed to her and read it out loud in front of each of those other congregations.

I don't recall hearing (at the time that the case hit the news) that the letters were read in the other congregations. I also do not know where these other 4 CoC congregations were located. But there was only this ONE CoC congregation in the small town of Collinsville. I stick to my opinion that their aim was to inform their own denomination's nearby congregations. As I said, it makes no sense to say that they would attempt to shame her in her own community, if they did not inform the congregations of other denominations located right there in Collinsville. (Our church house is/was located 3 1/2 miles from town, and is now a part of the Owasso city limits. Owasso was 4 1/2 miles away at that time.)
I do need to correct one statement I made earlier. The owner/operator of the pharmacy in Collinsville was a member of the MB congregation. Oh, and come to think of it, another member owned the furniture store. The "Five & Ten" was owned by my great Uncle, but he was no longer a member of the MB congregation - they were Nazarene. I did not hear ANYTHING about this case from anyone until it went to court, and the verdict was written up in the local newspaper. I never knew that it was later appealed to the Oklahoma State supreme court, either.

Obviously I wasn't there. I'm just reading from the evidence presented in the court filings above. They specifically state:

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.

So by their own words it was about branding her as a 'fornicator" and church discipline. Not about safety. This all occurred AFTER she had left the church and asked to be left alone.

I wasn't "there" either (in that congregation), but I was living in that community. All kinds of thing are said in court. But I still maintain that had shaming her been their motivation, they would have publicized it right there in town, not sent their letters out to congregations outside the community. I already said that we didn't in general consider the CoC people to be good Christians, so I'm not defending them. I'm just looking at it logically, from what I know first hand, living there nearby at that time.

I just looked at a list of CURRENT CoC locations. The closest ones to the Collinsville location were not there then - those areas were open farm land back then. There might have been one in Owasso, which would have been 7 miles away, in an even smaller town, and in a different county. The only ones that were in the same county were one in Oolagah, around 20 miles to the north, and another in Claremore, about the same distance to the east. (These are probably three of the 4 mentioned.) This was not a heavily populated area back then. And, as I already said, the majority of people in that whole area were Southern Baptist. Yet they did not send letters to any of them. They didn't care about other denominations. So I still think that this shows that their focus was not on shaming her, but to prevent her from being able to just move to another CoC congregation w/o the new church home knowing of her refusal to repent. As far as I can recall (and from what little I read in the court documents now), she didn't deny her immoral behavior. But it's not that important, and none of this has anything to do with the reason why I mentioned this case to start with. I won't try to change your mind anymore.

[Ken]

But it's not that important, and none of this has anything to do with the reason why I mentioned this case to start with. I won't try to change your mind anymore.

I'm not sure where you think my mind is. My general position (not specifically related to plain culture) is that:

1. Churches should defer to the law when it comes to actual crimes like sex abuse and not try to cover up for abusers and address deal with that sort of thing "in-house" Few churches and church authorities are actually equipped to recognize and investigate sexual abuse or physical abuse of children and deal with the devious psychopaths who tend to be serial abusers and pedophiles. Churches or church leaders who choose to cover up crimes they are aware of make themselves complicit co-conspirators. Especially when we are talking specifically about the topic of child abuse where they have a legal duty to report. If a church chooses not to press charges against say a church secretary who embezzled funds that is a somewhat different situation and less concerning because it is the church that is the victim, not a child or spouse.

2. Churches be free to address issues of sin (that don't rise to the level of crime) any way they see fit according to their faith. That is what freedom of religion is about. I really don't have an issue with much of anything that churches choose to do internally. That is their business. I would only make exceptions for cases like churches who refuse necessary medical care for children. Or religious groups who practice female genital mutilation or honor killings and that sort of fringe stuff. I don't think you have a right to harm others, especially minors. And in all those cases those are actual crimes.

3. Churches should not be in the business of regulating sin outside of their own circles other than in a general sense such as advocating generally for public morality or laws. I agree with the court in this case that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion and the church should have respected the wishes of this woman to be left alone once she decided to leave that church. That is the sort of thing that happens in Saudi Arabia where people can be jailed or executed for things like apostacy.

4. I'm not generally in favor of these sorts of privately run MAP lists and that sort of thing. I think they represent a failure of the church community and the end result of what happens when churches don't act and then private individuals feel forced to act instead. There shouldn't be any need for a MAP list. If there are actual dangerous predators out there, churches should let the legal system deal with them and do proper background checks of people placed into positions where they have the opportunity to abuse children.

[Neto]

But it's not that important, and none of this has anything to do with the reason why I mentioned this case to start with. I won't try to change your mind anymore.

I'm not sure where you think my mind is. My general position (not specifically related to plain culture) is that:
....

My comment which you quoted above was only referring to the facts of this incident in Collinsville. It seemed to me that we were not dealing with the topic of this thread anymore at all, and I wanted out. Your comments about the church's leaders made assumptions with which I disagree. As I said, it does not follow logically to insist that the congregation's response was a result of a personal vendetta against that woman. I did not know any of the persons involved personally, nor did I, or do I, have any inside information, except that I know what the area was like at that time, that it was not like Mennonite church houses are here in Holmes County, or in Lancaster county, where there's one "at every corner post". I was only saying that if the CoC leadership had wanted to "ruin her" in the local community, they would have "publicized" her unrepentant sinful lifestyle in the local community, not in the farther flung "community" of their own faith group.
I mentioned this legal case only to advise caution in the use of any privately maintained "unrepentant sinner's list'. I got carried away in my responses, and I apologize for that.

[steve-in-kville]

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.

In an attempt to right this ship....

[Chris]

Yes, I have heard of it happening in plain communities. But if by domestic violence you only mean wife beating, then I think your definition is too narrow. Read the definition on the link below and then re-ask your question. There should be hundreds of responses.

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence

My original intent was the afore mentioned "wife beating" but would be open to discuss the other types referenced in the link provided.

I'd say more often than not the woman is beating the man. It really happens.

[KirkDaniel]

Yes, I have heard of it happening in plain communities. But if by domestic violence you only mean wife beating, then I think your definition is too narrow. Read the definition on the link below and then re-ask your question. There should be hundreds of responses.

https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence

My original intent was the afore mentioned "wife beating" but would be open to discuss the other types referenced in the link provided.

I'd say more often than not the woman is beating the man. It really happens.

Of course it happens. But far too often it is male on female violence.