Church Discipline

[Neto]

I was thinking of the combination of the photo of people who presumably did not consent to their photos being 'published' along with the negative comment.

When people are in public at a public festival on a public street, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. People are allowed to take pictures, particularly of public festivals.

His political opinion is his business, but personalizing it with the photo of his neighbors was at least in poor taste, and possibly illegal as well.

How on earth is this illegal?

I didn't say that it IS illegal, I said 'possibly'. I was just going by what I have seen as a common practice, both in news articles where the faces of bystanders are blurred out, and by the mission practice in Brazil of regarding photographs of tribal people as their property, not to be used without their consent. (Recordings of traditional stories and other language data are treated with the same consideration.)

[Soloist]

Our country really has two options. We can continue to follow in China’s footsteps, or we can help legal immigrants adapt. Birthing rate problems are going to doom most of the first world nations and we either adapt or die.


As for the church side, our churches would have a problem with this man for several reasons and he would be subject to discipline.

[JohnH]

Our country really has two options. We can continue to follow in China’s footsteps, or we can help legal immigrants adapt. Birthing rate problems are going to doom most of the first world nations and we either adapt or die.

I think it's important that people can express their opinions without fear of spiritual abuse. With that said, China isn't exactly a first-world nation and the birth rate is down everywhere, even in the third world.

With that said, I think it's okay for people not to want to be replaced with migrants from another country and unable to get a job or afford a house because they aren't a member of that migrant group. That's become a serious problem in America, and is well documented.

As for the church side, our churches would have a problem with this man for several reasons and he would be subject to discipline.

Right. But he's not a member in one of our churches. He was a member in a church where it's perfectly acceptable to have political views.

I'd also have a problem if some Baptist church was busy excommunicating people for expressing pro-immigrant sentiment (such as what you did above). I wouldn't like it if your church excommunicated you for what you expressed above, either.

[Bootstrap]

No one should ever submit to spiritual abuse.

How are you defining spiritual abuse here?

Asking people not to post potentially inflammatory things on Twitter/X is spiritual abuse?

What other restrictions on Internet usage could count as spiritual abuse? Would asking people not to take disagreements among believers to the toxic media soup also be spiritual abuse?

[Bootstrap]

I don't think you did anything wrong. I do think, however, you should grant the same freedom to other people. I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.

But the only sunlight I brought was to the elders, who then had me formally shunned instead of looking at what was happening. A year later, this all came out, and they got rid of the leader. I don't think the media ever got wind of it.

There was no place within the Kingdom to bring this. If we had been part of a group that had a way to have these disputes aired, I would have gone that route. I did not ask the secular world to judge the church. So I don't think this is inconsistent with what I am saying here. Mentioning something that happened in the 1980s on MennoNet, without naming the church or giving enough information to identify it, is not the same thing as bringing it to The Blaze.

In retrospect, I should probably have brought this to the board that licensed psychotherapists. They had legitimate jurisdiction here. At the time, I was busy reconstructing my life after being cast out of an intentional community.

[Bootstrap]

As for the church side, our churches would have a problem with this man for several reasons and he would be subject to discipline.

Right. But he's not a member in one of our churches. He was a member in a church where it's perfectly acceptable to have political views.

I don't have the inside view on that church. I don't have the inside view on your church either. I have no idea what conversations he had with his church. Neither does The Blaze. I would hate to see your church or my church or Soloist's church in articles like the ones you pointed to.

If a disgruntled member of Soloist's church took his side of the story to The Blaze, would that be different? Would you expect Soloist's church to answer The Blaze if they request an interview and air everything in the toxic media soup? If not, why is that problematic for another church but OK for Soloist's church?

[JohnH]

No one should ever submit to spiritual abuse.

How are you defining spiritual abuse here?

Asking people not to post potentially inflammatory things on Twitter/X is spiritual abuse?

Excommunicating someone for having a reasonable political opinion that happens to be one church leadership disagrees with is spiritual abuse, in my opinion, particularly when that church hasn't stated upfront what political opinions it expects its members to have.

What other restrictions on Internet usage could count as spiritual abuse? Would asking people not to take disagreements among believers to the toxic media soup also be spiritual abuse?

That church doesn't have restrictions on Internet usage as far as I know. Part of spiritual abuse is arbitrarily imposing expectations on people and then using church discipline and excommunication as a hammer to try to force their compliance.

Boot, you seem to me to be awfully delighted that someone is getting kicked out of their church for having a reasonable opinion on immigration that happens to be one held by about half the country and represented by a major political party. How would you feel if your church excommunicated you for the political opinions you've expressed about migrants?

[Soloist]

I think it's important that people can express their opinions without fear of spiritual abuse. With that said, China isn't exactly a first-world nation and the birth rate is down everywhere, even in the third world.

Down is relative. I’m specifically referring to the science suggesting maintaining population size is roughly 2.5-2.7.

With that said, I think it's okay for people not to want to be replaced with migrants from another country and unable to get a job or afford a house because they aren't a member of that migrant group. That's become a serious problem in America, and is well documented.

Our country has always had immigration problems of one sort or another.
Speaking how he did isn’t addressing immigration but was targeted at one group. He could have expressed his opinion without targeting one nationality. He could have targeted you, you immigrated, you took someone’s job, someone’s house. You’d think you’d learn something but by my experience, legal immigrants seem to have a very negative opinion about anyone else. The classic, everyone else is the problem and people just don’t understand why it’s okay for me.

Right. But he's not a member in one of our churches. He was a member in a church where it's perfectly acceptable to have political views.

These churches have long had political positions and if you don’t agree with them, eventually you leave or are pushed out. It’s perfectly acceptable to have group political views or keep quiet about your views, many many churches are the same way and in that way, we have official doctrine and then fringe beliefs that are tolerated as long as they aren’t making noise.

I'd also have a problem if some Baptist church was busy excommunicating people for expressing pro-immigrant sentiment (such as what you did above). I wouldn't like it if your church excommunicated you for what you expressed above, either.

It’s just a simple cold calculation. No position.
As birth rates drop, the availability of people to work jobs reduces leaving less people to manage infrastructure as our population ages. You can claim whatever you want about China first world or not but we are heading the same way as are several other countries.

Excommunicating someone for having a reasonable political opinion that happens to be one church leadership disagrees with is spiritual abuse, in my opinion, particularly when that church hasn't stated upfront what political opinions it expects its members to have

While I agree, there are a number of Anabaptists that seem to think unwritten rules are important. They still expect compliance even if you didn’t know them when you joined.

[JohnH]

I don't have the inside view on that church. I don't have the inside view on your church either. I have no idea what conversations he had with his church. Neither does The Blaze. I would hate to see your church or my church or Soloist's church in articles like the ones you pointed to.

First of all, you aren't quite getting the story right. The person in question shared his story on Twitter, which is perfectly acceptable to do. He shared the letter / communications he received. He also shared that he was essentially kicked out and told not to attend anymore.

We don't order our excommunicants not to attend church anymore. I consider that a grave form of spiritual abuse. We don't even restrain them from going up to the front and talking sometime, even though they're not supposed to. Sometimes it happens. We don't call the police to try to enforce this and claim they're "trespassing".

If a disgruntled member of Soloist's church took his side of the story to The Blaze, would that be different? Would you expect Soloist's church to answer The Blaze if they request an interview and air everything in the toxic media soup? If not, why is that problematic for another church but OK for Soloist's church?

So let's break it down this way:

- Let's say Soloist's church has had a long history of being perfectly fine with its members posting all kinds of things on Twitter.

- Soloist's church's leadership align themselves with MAGA in terms of their opinions, support ICE actions, and think we should curtail immigration to America (as many other people in America do).

- Someone in Soloist's church is a somewhat public figure who uses social media, including Twitter, to promote their coffee shop and share their opinion about various things. Gradually, they find they are uncomfortable with some of the things ICE is doing, such as grabbing 15 year olds off the street and detaining them. He starts to tweet about this.

- The leadership isn't comfortable with this and orders him to retract his tweets and to issue a statement saying he's sorry and that he supports ICE.

- He isn't willing to do so, and he's then told he's under church discipline and that he and his family aren't allowed to set foot in the church building until they "repent" of not supporting ICE. He posts the letter he receives on Twitter and shares his side of the story.

- A media outlet such as Daily Kos ends up picking up this story and reporting on it, based on what was publicly shared on Twitter. As media outlets often do, they call him and he confirms what he already said on Twitter. They also contact the church who declines to say or confirm anything, but the church also doesn't deny that they wrote the letter.

I would consider that spiritual abuse, and I sure hope you would, too. A healthy church lets people have differing opinions about immigration. And if a healthy church has been allowing people to express political opinions on Twitter, they don't suddenly bring down a heavy hand when someone expressed an opinion that leadership disagrees with.

[JohnH]

I think it's important that people can express their opinions without fear of spiritual abuse. With that said, China isn't exactly a first-world nation and the birth rate is down everywhere, even in the third world.

Down is relative. I’m specifically referring to the science suggesting maintaining population size is roughly 2.5-2.7.

There aren't many countries left that meet that threshold (including India, which was at 1.93 in 2023 and is undoubtedly lower now, which is the country in question for this whole discussion).

Our country has always had immigration problems of one sort or another.
Speaking how he did isn’t addressing immigration but was targeted at one group. He could have expressed his opinion without targeting one nationality. He could have targeted you, you immigrated, you took someone’s job, someone’s house. You’d think you’d learn something but by my experience, legal immigrants seem to have a very negative opinion about anyone else. The classic, everyone else is the problem and people just don’t understand why it’s okay for me.

Sure, he could have. At the same time, I don't think nepotistic hiring practices are a good thing. I have not engaged in only hiring people of my own race and ethnic group - quite the opposite. I'm opposed to anyone doing that, regardless of what immigrant group they are a part of. When large businesses like Cognizant have about 2/3rds of their workplace being Indian nationals, it raises questions if they, as a business, are being part of America and our laws and customs against nepotistic and ethnic-based hiring.

More concerningly, what really goes on is not just preference for Indian nationals, but the problems of the caste system tend to come over as well. I don't think hiring preferences based on caste should be tolerated or allowed in America, but unfortunately that is what goes on; here's an article describing how upper-caste India nationals make up the overwhelming amount of migrants here in the tech sector, despite being about 3% of India's overall population. I don't think the caste system is good, and I think it's entirely reasonable to speak up against it.

Of course, I think it's okay for you to have differing opinions about this. I wouldn't want you to be excommunicated for disagreeing with me.

These churches have long had political positions and if you don’t agree with them, eventually you leave or are pushed out. It’s perfectly acceptable to have group political views or keep quiet about your views, many many churches are the same way and in that way, we have official doctrine and then fringe beliefs that are tolerated as long as they aren’t making noise.

That's certainly true and that's a pretty valid criticism of certain types of churches...which is exactly what I criticized here. What is bizarre to me is to see anyone defending a church excommunicating people for holding mainstream political views.

While I agree, there are a number of Anabaptists that seem to think unwritten rules are important. They still expect compliance even if you didn’t know them when you joined.

At the same time, generally speaking, breaking an unwritten rule doesn't result in summary formal church discipline.