A rainbow in the Orion Nebula. JPL/NASA
“Religious sexual harassment and abuse has become an epidemic. Sadly, it’s not something new. It’s existed since the fall of Adam and Eve. Religion is not exempt. A sacred place meant to be safe and holy has become the breeding ground for violence and evil.” ― Sacred Wandering: Growing Your Faith In The Dark
Recently, I have been fielding some calls regarding church covenants gone wrong. I feel so sorry for these folks who are hurt and frustrated by narcissistic leaders who play games with their perceived authority. So, it’s time to review the problems with these documents. The attached older post will review how to get out of these voluntary contracts that are secretly legal documents designed to protect the church. These are not designed to protect you, the innocent and badly advised church member.
I will end with a post that I wrote six years ago. I have found no reason to change my opinion that one should not sign a covenant.
Do not join your church for two years.
After discovering my Lutheran church, my husband and I attended church services for two years. We participated in some adult classes and church activities. Here is what I discovered.
- We got to see the pastors functioning in all aspects of church life. We were impressed with their quiet humility and obvious concern for the congregants. They left us alone except to learn our names and ask how we were doing. They seemed pleased to see us there weekly. Never once did they ask us to join the church.
- We loved the two years of just enjoying our church without responsibilities. It gave us time to understand the church better. We continued with some local ministries. I continued to write this blog. I think I started to feel relaxed in church for the first time.
- We discovered that a membership covenant did not exist in our church.
- When we joined, we found nothing had changed except we got involved in activities within the church. We help with our church services and are interested in youth activities.
In my opinion, there is no reason to join a church immediately. Spend time getting to know it. Take a breather and enjoy God in the process. All churches will accept your donations, and many will allow you to participate in many activities within the church.
Why would you allow a pastor or church leader whom you haven’t observed for years to be able to discipline you or your family members?
A pastor fooled me for several years. I didn’t know him well, but my few interactions with him left me cold. He played the “I’m just a good ol Southern boy, as shucks” quite well. However, one day, that changed when we had to question how the church handled the abuse of many teen boys. The legal claws came out, and we got out of there.
Folks, you do not know your church leaders well if you attend a church of 2,000 members or more. That pastor puts on a show for you each week but rarely exhibits the natural person behind the mask. People tell me they “knew their pastor since they watched him for ten years.” They don’t know him well. They know what he wants them to see. Why should that person who doesn’t know you well be allowed to discipline you?
Take a look at what happened to Eileen Gray. She didn’t know John MacArthur, and look what happened. EXCLUSIVE: John MacArthur Shamed, Excommunicated Mother for Refusing to Take Back Child Abuser.
Never forget that All the pastors and All the elders and assorted hangers-on can also have “authority” over all of the members. Do you trust all of them to discipline you? How well do you know them? Another scenario to consider is that you could be 50 years old, and your pastor, with all of the authority, is 28. How does that work?
Why should you let someone control your life via the membership covenant?
What does it mean to submit to those in authority over you?
How much authority does a megachurch leader have over you? Does this mean that people who don’t know you, usually in a megachurch, should have a right to tell you you can’t leave without his permission?
Let’s take this back a notch. What does it mean to submit to a church leader? I think it means helping them out in the various ministries in the church. Much of that work is not glorious. For example, our pastor asked my husband and me if we could help with altar care. This means getting to church early and staying after to clean up. So, we have been doing this and have found it an excellent way to speak with others who help out in the services. The pastor asked me to help with a weekly youth activity for nine months. I wasn’t so sure I wanted to do it, but I decided I would because he asked. I have been doing this for six years and have found much joy in getting to know the students, their parents, and church leaders. Isn’t this what is meant by submission?
Many in the church do disaster relief, minister with a food truck, and clean a road that the church adopted. None of this is “fun,” but it is responding by submitting to the ministry of the church leaders. In doing so, many have found intimacy with others who choose to submit to the program the pastors and leaders designed. I almost forgot to say that the members have also helped design and implement these programs. The leaders listen to the people as well.
I think that is the type of submission the Bible is talking about. It is not pastors saying that you can’t leave without their permission. If you disagree with me, tell me why.
Sheer baloney and laziness: Without a church contract, the pastor wouldn’t know who they have “authority” over or “responsibility” for.
If the church leaders and pastors don’t know who is coming to the church, then the church is out of control. My pastors understand who is coming to the church long before they join the church. I have watched as the church has cared for new people who hadn’t yet joined.
The real problem is that many churches are too big, and the hope is to make it bigger and bigger and “change the world.” The problem is that they rarely change anything. A membership contract will not solve that problem. It is just a means for control when the leaders feel like exerting their “authority.” Many times, that control is erratic and unevenly applied. Read the John MacArthur story.
Question: I really want to know the answer to this
Tell me why my church is wrong by not having a membership covenant/contract. Tell me why your church is doing it better than my church.
9 Marks Finally Admits Membership *Covenants” Are Legal Documents. We Told You So! Caveat Emptor
Endeavor’s Tour of California (near Malibu) NASA
“We are programmed to receive. You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave! “Quote from the lyrics of Hotel California link
I have been writing about membership *covenants,* which I call contracts, since 2010. Back then, I wrote a post on how to get out of a membership covenant even if you are under discipline. Here is a link to that permanent posting.
Through the years, I have received several emails from pastors claiming their covenant isn’t a contract. I told them they would see the light if something happened in their church, and they discovered that their covenants were a contract when they consulted their lawyers. I’m unsure if these pastors were ignorant or merely trying to pull the wool over their congregations’ eyes. I’m sure some of them were ignorant, BTW.
I have had the experience of hearing how numerous churches present this document before having their church members sign it. They talk about how it is a promise to care and pray for one another, kind of “Let’s tiptoe through the tulips together” sort of a document. Unfortunately, this bed of tulips is filled with snakes, ready to bite.
Many people do not realize I have another free side job related to this blog. I am the “Dear Abby” on how to get out of a church when the church appears to want to apply retroactive church discipline. Retroactive church discipline is a term I invented to describe some poor souls’ experience. Everything is going well. Then, the member gets the heebie-jeebies about the church and leaves. However, the church declares the individual to be suddenly, and without notice, “under church discipline.” Depending on the church, they are then told that they must do something to secure their release from the discipline dungeon.
The very first person I met, who was struggling with this problem, now writes for TWW. You can read Todd’s story, which happened when he was still living in Dubai, called My, My Dubai. It is a timely reminder since it was a 9Marks church that did this, and it is 9Marks that now admits that such covenants are legal contracts. Todd sent me a great picture of Dubai, which I keep as a remembrance of that debacle.
What happens when you are asked to sign a covenant/covenant?
- If the pastors don’t tell you there are legal ramifications when you sign it, they are either deceptive or ignorant.
- It doesn’t matter if they are ignorant.
- If you sign it, you are legally bound by it so long as you continue to be a church member and do not legally resign your membership.
- You can legally resign your membership anytime, no matter what they say. You live in the USA, and you can leave any voluntary organization at any time unless you legally owe them money.
- You don’t have to sign a covenant to be legally bound by it. If you give verbal consent to the contract or repeat the vows in the contract in a meeting you are stuck. If your pastor asks people in the congregation to stand in affirmation of the contract, and you stand, you are probably stuck as well, especially if they filmed everyone standing. Some churches even hide it in the rules of membership. For example. If you join, you agree to the document.
- There are lots of other caveats. That’s why I suggest consulting a lawyer if you must sign the gosh darn thing.
What should you do if the church has the covenant and you like it?
Don’t join. Many churches are thrilled if you give money or show up at the “Let’s clean the parking lot” Day. Sure, you can’t vote but when was the last time your vote really made a difference. It is my opinion that most churches never put anything to the vote unless they are sure of the outcome.
9Marks is the Hotel California of the evangelical set
In the many years that I have been advising on how to flee a coercive church, as far as I can remember, except a few, the church is a member of the 9Marks network or the pastor has 9Marks materials in his office. BTW, if you ever go into a pastor’s office, always look and see what books he has on display. They most likely represent his theological bent. One such office I visited, had books by John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Mark Dever. I knew it was time to prepare my exit strategy.
A reader sent us this post at 9 Marks on July 2, 2021: Why American Courts Care about Church Membership—And Why You Should, Too.
I love the word * respect* before the word members. It rarely works that way.
American law provides reasons for churches to give careful attention to both their membership policies and the theological basis for those policies. Doing so respects the individuals who come to the church, and it can also protect the church from legal liability.
Pay very close to this next part. I have highlighted the word *internal.*
American courts have recognized that the First Amendment’s religion clauses prohibit courts from interfering with churches’ internal affairs
So long as you are a member inside the church, you are possibly subject to even the most arbitrary discipline.
Note this next line. The church has a right to define its own set of rules. They can define what should be disciplined. This means that so long as you are a member of the church, the pastors can dream up all sorts of things when it comes to discipline and there is little that you can do about it.
On many occasions, when churches have been sued for church discipline, courts have said that they cannot review the decisions of a church in carrying out its principles of discipline and self-governance.
Courts look for defined membership in legal cases.
What have I been saying for years?
If a church can point to a membership commitment or covenant that explains the biblical basis of church discipline, then there’s little chance that anyone (courts included) could be confused about the religious basis of church discipline. If the member in fact agreed to the covenant, so much the better.
It’s about protecting the church, not protecting you.
For years I have been saying that these confounded membership covenants were not created to make sure that Martha and Joe pray for the church. That sounds really spiritual and nice but that isn’t what this is about. The 9Marks author sums it up nicely.
American courts recognize that churches have a religious responsibility to govern themselves in accordance with their convictions. Church membership is thus not just a way of following biblical principles of accountability and commitment. It’s a wise way to protect the church from liability.
It’s the member’s responsibility to know these things.
I contend that it is the responsibility of the church to inform the prospective member that they are signing a legal document which will protect the church, especially if the church decides to discipline you. According to this, it appears that 9Marks has no intention of revealing the legalities inherent in signing a *covenant.* I find that troubling and so should prospective members ho should know they are signing legal documents, not a simple vow by Ethel and Fred to pray for the church.
Members and prospective members should be aware of what they’re committing to when they join a church.
Read how he writes this paragraph. If you don’t think that these covenants have legal implications, then this should convince you.
Many Americans are unaware that there’s even a difference between being a regular attendee and a member. “I’m committed to the church! I make it a priority, and I’m there consistently,” one might say. “Doesn’t that make me a member?” No, because (among other things) being a regular attendee doesn’t sufficiently clarify the nature of the relationship between the attendee and the church. There are biblical reasons to argue this, of course, but I simply want to emphasize that this also influences how many American judges have approached the issue.
The value of church membership for the average Joe appears to be tied to *allows oneself to be lovingly disciplined.*
Those who never took the step of affirming their commitment cannot expect the same commitment from the church. This includes the commitment to lovingly discipline them if they persist if the occasion requires it. Again, historically, American courts have recognized this. Perhaps they can serve as a reminder to contemporary Christians who wonder about the value of church membership.
Do biblical best practices involve signing a legally based church contract?
As one who has read the Bible for many years, I have yet to see a membership covenant being discussed in any chapter, even in the Epistles. Can anyone out there help me here? It appears the author, in keeping with Dever’s best practices, is delighted to see that the law recognizes membership[ contracts. After all, they end up protecting the church.
Apparently a church covenant is considered For Christians, the biblical case for church membership should always be first and foremost. But it’s good to know that complying with biblical best practices also has practical legal benefits.
Take away points
- Membership covenants are merely legal contracts that allow the church to discipline you as the church sees fit.
- If the church does not tell you that you are signing a legal contract, you need to ask and wonder why.
- You can quit a church anytime you wish, no matter what the covenant states. Being a member of a church is a voluntary association which means you join because you wanted to join and you leave because you wanted to leave.
- Be sure to put in writing (and send by certified mail ) that you have rescinded your membership as of a particular date. Do not speak to them after this point. If they ask you to come to a meeting, don’t do it. If they keep bothering you, you may need to threaten legal action.
- Don’t sign a membership contract, no matter what they call it. Many great churches do not require such devices.
- A good church will let you attend even if you are not a member. Many churches will let you take part in many activities without membership. They also love donations from non-members.
The level of deception in this whole membership contract stuff is just disgusting… it is so far from being “christ-like”
I first heard about membership contracts some time in the ’00s or perhaps as late as 2010, in the context of a CCEF class. They were definitely portrayed as protective of the church (leadership), but the portrayed purpose did not at the time seem sinister; it was to protect from litigation by congregants angry at having been properly disciplined (for example, barred from Communion) for gross sin. IIRC, alternative dispute resolution procedures (other than litigation) would be contractually agreed; of course, those may not be impartial, and the question of “who pays for the ADR?” may bias the outcome.
It did not occur to me at the time to wonder “what could go wrong?” in such contracts. In retrospect, they do seem like a bad idea.
But here’s a question, which I ask in genuine curiosity — if there are potential negative legal consequences to church officers acting in good faith (for example, a congregant in an adulterous relationship gets really angry at attempts by church leaders to intervene in the situation and brings a legal action seeking damages for claimed infliction of emotional distress), what should the church leaders do?
—-
This is perhaps a good argument against “scale” in Christian congregations. The bigger a congregation is, the more likely there are to be people who, when validly reproved for gross sin will, rather than repent, get angry and seek legal redress.
When a group is so large that the people do not know one another well enough to trust one another, it is too large, IMO, to be a well-functioning congregation of Christ.
I’m just going to point out that courts are not going to get involved in matters of doctrine / dogma. No judge, from Justice of the Peace to the Supreme Court, will do this. And, in fact, if the contracts have Alternative Dispute Resolution, you’d be barred from court anyway.
Let’s be clear: these contracts are only for the benefit of the leadership. And you know who *loves* contracts with Alternative Dispute Resolution? Scientology. I mean, if you want to make some pastor uncomfortable, ask him (it’s almost always going to be a him) why the church has a contract when Scientology does the same thing?
I would also note that the earliest Christians did not have covenants and contracts, and why yes, those things existed back in the day.
9Marks article 8.10.2023 by Juan Sanchez. Eye-opening about “giving permission to leave.”
I still don’t understand how these covenants are legal contracts. There may be a meeting of the minds and an exchange of promises, but where is the legal consideration? Bare promises aren’t enforceable contracts. Please give me a little legal tutorial.
As I have stated before, I attended a fundamentalist 7-12 grade schools… we have weekly Bible verses to memorize, and when I keep reading on TWW about all of the abuse by leaders, and in current case, their attempt to control/abuse church members, this set of memorized verses comes to mind:
2 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Why not just create a “convenant” that states you (all members, INCLUDING the leaders) will attempt to follow these verses? If one wants details, then cite the beatitudes and practical examples of who Christ said to treat each other?
I find membership vows problematic. Here is one of the vows to become a member in a PCA church:
“Do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?”
I was accused of failure to submit to church leadership (i.e. the pastor) after I came to the defense of a friend who was unjustly put out of the church. I took a vow of submission when I became a member of this church. I will not take this vow again, since I cannot predict the future trustworthiness of leadership in any church.
Hebrews 13:17 does not mandate a vow. In fact, this verse cannot be taken as a universal mandate. First, it is a letter to a particular congregation whose leadership proved trustworthy. Second, the Greek word for “submit” is the passive verb for “to persuade.” We are to “be persuadable,” teachable, open to correction. I will gladly yield to responsible leadership. I will not agree to submit without exception to any person or institution, except for my sinless, gentle Savior, Jesus.
I think covenants are a substitute for legitimate authority structures. For example, in the church in which I became a member (and signed a covenant), the elders/pastors were the sole authority. The membership had no voting rights regarding any decision in the church. Existing elders/pastors picked additional elders/pastors. In my opinion, the teaching pastor (the only elder with a job description in the bylaws) picked yes-men who wouldn’t challenge his authority as the first among equals. After seven years of attending, I was still unclear as to how this teaching pastor gained his position in the first place.
In this case, the authority structure was extremely tenuous. Who was in authority over the teaching pastor? Who selected the teaching pastor for his position? It was a game of pretend where we all played church and one person took the role of senior pastor because he “said so”.
Enter the membership covenant. It’s a document the pastor can point to and say, “Look, my position’s legitimate because you signed this paper saying it’s legitimate.”
I wonder how many more elder-ruled churches like my previous church operate this way?
Dale Rudiger,
I completely agree…
When I was involved in Campus Ministries, I saw a number of examples that I thought were very deceptive… I could be accused of the same thing if I challenge it..
Paul K,
Great analysis…
“Do not join your church for two years.”
It’s been my experience that it takes at least that long to ‘really’ figure out what’s going on in a particular church. Things are often not what they seem at first glance, with the Sunday morning performance a demonstration of putting a church’s best foot forward to attract new members … even though the other foot may be into all sorts of things through the week. It takes a while to determine if “Pastor” is a narcissist (or worse), if demon-deacons or evil-elders are running things, if the congregation is serious about the things of faith or playing games with God.
It’s sad, but this is status quo in far too many churches across the American landscape. Buyer beware … don’t join yourself to the enemy’s camp even if it’s called “church” … and NEVER EVER FOREVER sign a membership covenant. The only covenant a believer needs to enter into is the one written in red by Jesus … when you do that, you are a member of the Body of Christ … no church membership required.
Unfortunately, far too many believers sign the things, thinking it’s the right thing to do. The problem with deception is that you don’t know you are deceived because you are deceived.
Exactly. It’s often better to be a member of a mini-church, rather than a mega-church for this reason.
The 21st century church would do well to revisit the church model of the 1st century, for a lot of reasons.
Which is all Jesus requires. He is the ultimate authority over a believer, not the institutions, teachings and traditions of mere men. “I have been given all authority in heaven and earth” (Jesus). Religious systems attempt to substitute His genuine authority and influence with counterfeit belief and practice designed to manipulate, intimidate and dominate.
Max,
But “mega churches” are exciting!!! and if all the people are going their, they must be doing it right!!
Mega does not necessarily mean big in the Kingdom of God.
The authority and influence of Jesus are waning in the American church. Signing on the bottom line takes more authority away from Him. Believers would do well to study Scripture to get a look at what Church is and what Church isn’t … in the meantime, they settle for church (little “c”).
When a church leader hands you a membership covenant to sign, ask him to cite the exact Bible book and verse where it says to do that. Of course, he can’t because it’s not there. When he comes back with the usual submit mumbo-jumbo of twisted Scripture, tell him that you, as a believer, have already submitted your life to Christ. If he continues to insist that you sign on the bottom line, let him see your bottom exiting the door.
“Just like Scientology, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
That is never a good sign.
Back to the 1st Century New Testament Church, just like the Wahabi and As It Was In the Days of the Prophet.
What could possibly go wrong?
(Pay no attention to all those One True House Churches who turned into mini-CULTS…)
I’ve figured there is an optimal size for a congregation. Probably related to the troop-size limit of 120-150, the threshold where people cease to be individuals and become just an abstract number.
A house church is too small.
A Mega (or Giga) is way too large.
I’ve been a churchgoer since birth, in four different traditions over time. All had lists of members. All had records of some kind, lists of people baptized, records of donations, mailing lists. None had a covenant or any kind of contract.
I have never belonged to a church that tried to discipline members. Never. This is not a necessary function of a church. This would interfere with my legal and Constitutional rights, my family life, and my relationship with God.
A mega pile of dog poop is still dog poop.
Related to the topic of 9Marks and Mark Dever of the we-don’t-give-communion-to-care-home-residents, I just had a pleasant experience at a church we’ve been attending for a few months.
The church has a ministry to three different assisted living communities in the area. They had a congregational meeting to vote on a change to their church constitution, which normally would be a red flag for me.
The change? To allow members to submit an absentee ballot (requested ahead-of-time) if they’re not able to attend a congregational meeting because of health reasons. Thus, allowing anyone who is disabled and homebound to still be actively involved in the decision-making process of the church.
I loved it.
The authority and influence of Jesus are waning in the American church. Signing on the bottom line takes more authority away from Him.
Max,
Yeah, and I can’t find any verses in the Bible that say anything about Jesus’ followers being required to sign “covenant” contracts …….. and, there’s no mention of the apostles being required to sign contracts with NDA clauses!
That’s because such Bible passages are not there … which makes churches requiring them look even more ridiculous and off-track! It’s an issue of clergy power and control over the laity, pure and simple. You can discipline a church member, if necessary, without having them sign a contract upfront. Heck, I’ve known church leaders who needed to be disciplined by their congregations … we read about them everyday on TWW!
An interesting thought. Beyond that level, a “pastor” would probably cease to be a genuine pastor as well … one who knows every member, visits their homes, calls their dog by name, available to marry and bury them, prays for them in hospitals and nursing homes … you know, the stuff that a true shepherd is supposed to do. Large churches send other folks than the pastor to minister to members … it just ain’t the same as having Pastor care for your soul.
Truth. He knew they were trustworthy. Paul was not writing this for members for all time to blindly submit to every aberrant leadership that would ever exist.
Too bad the Jim Jones victims weren’t able into excercise judgement and discernment. But the way this verse is usually interpreted and applied by poor leadership leaves no room for discernment by the “blindly submitted, let us control you, giving units”.
Agreed. Kinda like, so what’s the point… other than entertainment?
It’d be nice to have 18, so all 18 gifts of the Spirit are active: Rom 12, 1 Cor 12, Eph 4.
How we treat each other, IMHO, defines church.
“I am giving you a new command — love one another. Just as I have loved you, so you must love one another. This is how all men will know that you are my disciples, because you have such love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)
Jesus commanded that we love one another. If we have a love problem, we have an obedience problem.
That’s one of the problems I have with the Calvinistas. I have yet to hear anyone characterize them as a loving bunch. Arrogance, power, control are the first descriptors that come to mind. No love = not disciples.
Max,
If you truely LOVED your congrgation, why would you want a Covenenat that legally “protects” the leader and the church… Christ “sacraficially” died…..
a genuine pastor as well … one who knows every member, visits their homes, calls their dog by name, available to marry and bury them, prays for them in hospitals and nursing homes …
Max,
Those kinds of pastors do more than that in my neck of the woods. They don’t say, I’ll pray for you.” They ask, “What can I do to help.” ….. and they mean it!
They call or visit the families who have recently lost loved ones; they visit those in the hospitals and nursing homes; they invite small groups of members into their homes and host dinners (um, suppers) occasionally; they make their rounds and visit all of the SS and VBS classes; they attend housewarming and birthday parties, and graduation services …. K through 5 to college. They are part of the communities ……. part of the families with all who welcome them.
Bob,
Well, you probably have not read all the articles that I’ve written about it. So let me get you started.
https://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-church-membership-covenants-legal-contracts-that-are-not-biblical/
You might be surprised to learn why you cannot sue a church once you have signed the document. These were not invented to help the member to remember to “pray for the church.” They were invented by a lawyer to protext the church. The power you had is now given to the church.
I have written extensively on this and just click on the right column of topics “covenants/contracts” to get yourself educated.
PS Your church leaders know that these are legal contracts and they don’t mention it to you.
These abusive dolts use language against their church members. To submit merely means to get involved with church activities with no coercion needed. Abusive leaders play word and head games with their members.
My church does not ask one to sign a covenant. Yet our church is relatively free of the nonsense that goes on in many churches out there.
If this blog’s experience is of value, it is lots of them.
Point 1 of 2: wise christiansI may not be the first commenter to say this, but ISTM that Christians don’t really need to think twice about para-church congregations with membership covenants. I mean, I don’t need to deliberate much over whether to stick my head down the toilet and flush it… just saying.
Point 2 of 2: fitba'My country of birth are playing my country of adoption tonight at Hampden Park, to mark the 150th anniversary of the wurrld’s auldest international fitba’ fixture.
Not going great for Scotland thus far… Englandshire 2-0 up at half time. The second half’s just underway.
#MonScotland
I, of course, will remain impartial; but Scotland/England is among My favourite fitba’ fixtures, I must say.
Best regards,
God
Jeffrey J Chalmers,
A ‘legal contract’ offers MORE of an opportunity to CONTROL AND MANIPULATE A MEMBER.
isn’t that what these contracts are really for, anyway?
Christian? nothing Christian about it
“Any agreement that two parties make can be legally enforced, whether it’s written or verbal. A signed document is important because it provides proof that an agreement exists and shows both parties agreed to identical terms.”
https://www.upcounsel.com/legally-binding-document#:~:text=Any%20agreement%20that%20two%20parties,parties%20agreed%20to%20identical%20terms.
“For the Lord your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awe-inspiring God, showing no partiality and taking no bribe” (Deut. 10:17). “For there is no favoritism with God” (Rom. 2:11)
🙂
I guess I’ll have to do the research myself, when I next get to the law library. I’m afraid your answer further confused me: a contract that cannot be sued upon by both parties–if breached–lacks mutuality and is not an enforceable contract under civil law. (I’m not questioning your discussion of the abuses and anomalies of “church covenants”; it’s just that, drawing on my admittedly rusty legal knowledge, I find it difficult to understand what they actually are?)
Bob,
It’s my understanding that “any” signed document between “any” two parties can be enforced in a court of law.
The membership covenant came to our church in 2004 after the purpose driven Life program.
This seems to have been a Rick Warren thing.
In purpose driven it appears the point was to get people into the church and keep them there.
That it was weaponized is no surprise.
The problem is that these churches want people who will allow themselves to be groomed and ignore red flags. It should be perfectly reasonable to attend a church without being pressured into joining or signing a contract.
The other side of this problem is of course that churches attract people who want to be groomed, will ignore a church’s history of rampant abuse, let them tell you whether you can use contraception, who to vote for, etc.
To me it’s blindingly obvious that you would just stop going to a church with a prolific abuse/cover up history or that is overly prescriptive, but I don’t think I’m the target audience for these franchises in their search for brand loyalty.
Bob,
Here is a post to read about how to resign from a church. This might help you to understand a bit more. https://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-how-to-resign-from-a-church-whether-or-not-you-are-under-church-discipline/
Just because an agreement is in writing doesn’t make it a legally enforceable contract; a legally binding agreement is the contract, not the writing memorializing it (though under the Statute of Frauds certain contracts must be memorialized in writing). At its most basic, a bilateral contract (between two parties) requires an offer, an acceptance, and some consideration, which is something beyond the mere offer and acceptance (usually but not always a payment of money) indicating that the parties intend the agreement to be legally enforceable. Thus, if I say “I offer to give you my cat,” and you say “I agree,” that is a bare promise, not an enforceable contract; but if I say “I’ll give you may cat for $10,” and you agree, then you have an enforceable contract that could be sued on in court if either party breached the agreement. Church covenants do not seem to be contracts in this sense.
Rather, church covenants, I think, fall under a separate, non-contractual set of legal doctrines. Under the 1st Amendment, absent extraordinary circumstances, secular courts refuse to interfere with the internal governance and operation of churches. Since a church covenant is entered into and enforced within a church community, a court will not interfere with its operation (absent an extraordinary showing of abuse or fraud). If this is what you mean by the term “legal contract,” we are in agreement.
While they denounce us Catholics (with much SCRIPTURE) for “blind obedience to a Roman Dictator”.
That’s the reason why larger churches end up with a Hierarchy; the “span of command” gets too great and the guy on top has to delegate, effectively breaking up the too-large church into smaller “sub-churches” – parishes, “franchise campuses”, “small groups”, whatever is today’s fad. Once you get above the troop-size limit, some form of Hierarchy and/or Bureaucracy is inevitable.
Thanks for the heads-up on this article, Godith. I published a tweet on this.
https://x.com/ThouArtTheMan/status/1701967918777745885?s=20
I suppose committing to a 10% tithe would be such consideration.
Bob,
Why are churches told to institute these contracts to protect the church? This thin was started by lawyers who tend to “protect the church at all cost even if it means hurting a congregant?” These were created to protect the church legally. Please read the first link I gave you. These things were not adopted as a touchy, feely “pray for your church.”
Attending Church of the Living God is voluntary. Believers can come and go by their own free will. Church leaders cannot dictate if/when they can leave.
“Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion” (2 Corinthians 9:7)
“Shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God” (1 Peter 5:2)
“Without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will” (Philemon 1:14)
I talked to a fellow who was attending a local SBC-NeoCal church plant. Knowing that I wasn’t too thrilled with New Calvinism (I have that reputation it seems), he told me that their pastor was requiring them to sign a membership contract in which he would agree to affirm commitment to The Westminster Confession of Faith. Not familiar with that reformed confession, as well as concern about other sections of the agreement, he took the contract to his lawyer to review. I don’t know how that came out, but do know the fellow is not attending the church plant any longer.
The Church of the Living God is voluntary … if you don’t agree to the belief and practice of the church you are attending, move along. God puts red flags in front of you to help you make this decision … a church membership agreement is one of them.
About eleven years ago someone tried to justify the legitimacy and use of such covenants. The response by one R Delaney made the following points n response to it. He said “ This is yet another rehashed 9 marks flyer on church membership. Point #1 is irrelavant, #2 is made up of stale arguments for your form of Churchianity. The NT churches knew who was in and who was by the regular attendance of professing believers, NOT by checking their church directories. The church membership standards you espouse are setting the bar higher than the Lord does, there is no membership covenant required by Christ in the formal sense you wish to assert. This is what happens when you elevate the local church and de-emphasize the universal church—insolated enclaves of small churches “covenanted” together to promote their own version of biblical faith.”
(Full article here https://matthewzcapps.com/2009/11/04/baptist-churches-and-membership-covenants/
In passing isthm that the only reason such covenants gain traction is almost entirely because of the Baptist view of the Church, namely, born again believers nay allowed. They dismiss the idea of the visible church entirely. Matt Chandler even tries to say that it will sinners seekers out. He also offers an night into his early years which,imo, explains a lot
https://www.9marks.org/article/journalchurch-membership-biblical/
Nay = only
That’s really the bottom-line for a believer to know when handed a church membership covenant to sign.
That’s just whacked.
As far as church membership goes, if you are a believer you are a member of THE CHURCH. Do not need formal membership anywhere else.
I personally hold that if you are a believer (born again person, whenever that took place remember it or not) you are baptized. Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit, the only ritual that really counts. Nothing wrong with water baptism, just not imho how a person is saved nor necessary for salvation. And I agree with Wade Burleson on communion. Nothing wrong with using the elements and does not require clergy to officiate. But in reality any time you eat or drink remembering Christ and what He did for us, His death, burial, and resurrection you had communion.
No need for any formal memberships spiritually. Now fiscally, yes, sure, 1st Church of Podunk doesn’t need anybody deciding on the light bill but folks that regularly attend and contribute. And that contribution can be private and is not the tithe. If all you can do is a quarter in the offering plate occasionally you contribute. If you teach, sing, lead, or “merely” serve by being present, you contribute. Same with praying grandpa in the nursing home. Those prayers are priceless. He contributes.
How simple the real church is. No contracts, no hiring and firing, no obligations made by man. Just two the Master gave us: love God with everything you have and are, and love your neighbor as yourself. (My rough paraphrase.)
Abuse of “church authority” is the natural result of a misinterpretation of “the keys,” “binding and loosing,” and “forgiving and retaining sin.”
First, the keys are seen as church power — and not the gospel message. Second, binding and loosing is seen as the exercise of authority — and not the responsibility to “bind up the brokenhearted” and “loose the chains of the captive” through the gospel. Finally, “retaining sin” is seen as inherent to church authority — and not in the context of a failure to forgive when sinned against.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
From the Westminster Confession, On Church Censures:
“To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.”
Bob,
A contract is also a contract if the parties believe in it and enforce it. As I understand the situation, families sometimes can’t transfer to another church in the same denomination/tradition/multi-campus-thing without permission, and that permission gets withheld. Now, who is going to make the elders write that letter?
In other cases, the family leaves, their departure and sins are announced in services, along with their breach of the covenant. A coalition of the willing forms, and this family gets flamed on social media, they lose jobs, their kids get shunned, etc.
This might all be outside the legal system, as you say. But it’s not outside lived reality.
I favor churches that don’t place a lot of demands on members—or indeed tell them how to live their lives.
Dale Rudiger,
Quite by coincidence last night I started reading “The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith” by the Rev Robert Shaw of Whitburn in 1845. In the Introduction he reminds readers that “The Westminster Confession of Faith contains a simple exhibition of the truth, based upon the Word of God; but its several propositions are laid in opposition to the heresies and errors which had been disseminated in various ages.”
The point of Church Censures was aimed at refuting Erastianism which argued that ALL power lay with the Civil Magistrate and not with the Church. In this regard Shaw states “ Church censures are necessary for vindicating the honor of Christ and his religion—maintaining the purity of his worship—reclaiming offenders —deterring others from the like offenses—removing contagion from the Church—and preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer the seals of his covenant to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders. The censures of the Church are spiritual in the nature and effects. They are appointed by Christ for the benefit of offenders, and have a tendency, as means, to promote their recovery, and not their destruction. As offenses differ in degrees of guilt and circumstances of aggravation, the Church is to proceed according to the nature and degree of the offense committed. In some cases a simple admonition will suffice.—Tit. iii. 10. A greater degree of guilt will call for a rebuke, solemnly administered in the name of Jesus Christ.—Tit. i.13; 1 Tim. v. 20. Scandals of greater magnitude will require the suspension of the offender from the sacrament of the Lord’s supper for a season.—2 Thess. iii. 14. This is called the lesser excommunication; and the highest censure which the Church has the power to inflict is called the greater excommunication.—Matt. xvii;. 17.
He also writes “ The Confession of Faith has often been accused of advocating intolerant and persecuting principles. It is, however, in truth, equally free from latitudinarian laxity on the one hand, and intolerance on the other. An intelligent and candid perusal of chapter xx., “On Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience,” ought of itself to refute all such calumnies. The mind of man never produced a truer or nobler proposition than the following:—”God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship.” The man who can comprehend, entertain, and act upon that principle, can never arrogate an overbearing and intolerant authority over the conscience of his fellowman, much less wield against him the weapons of remorseless persecution.”
And this is just from the Introduction.It’s going to be a really worthwhile read.
I favor staying home and saving 10%
Dale Rudiger,
And it’s all extra-biblical, beyond what Jesus did.
It’s the extra-biblical stuff that sets denominations apart. It’s the extra-biblical stuff that leads to error and heresy. It’s the extra-biblical stuff that gives the pulpit power and control. It’s the extra-biblical stuff that ensnares and chokes the spiritual daylights out of believers.
The hammer was released into SBC life with the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith & Message.
I know of a church that instituted membership agreements to keep from being sued for refusing to marry LGBTQ couples. One could join the church only if they agreed that marriage was between a man and woman, and the church would only perform weddings for members.
This would be a specific example of “protecting the church” for Bob’s possible consideration, I think.
Max,
I totally agree, Max. Glad you’re back commenting
Sarah (aka Wild Honey),
Was this an act of circling the wagons? Lots of churches already only marry their own members. From what I see, churches, church schools, etc., are free to refuse to marry couples for whatever reason, to fire unmarried pregnant teachers, etc. A church is not a commercial enterprise or paid provider of a creative service.
I fully understand them doing so to protect themselves.
We live in a day and age where ‘activists’ with an axe to grind would not hesitate a millimeter to ‘make an example’ of said church in court.
I think that a very dangerous precedent would be set, given that the civil authorities have long stayed out of church issues.
Anybody who knows me, knows that my views range from the very ‘liberal’ to the very ‘conservative’.
In the US the courts generally stay out of internal church matters[1] and that includes who they perform religious ceremonies for. The only time a church could be sued would be if they entered a contract to perform the marriage knowing full well it was same-sex and then backed out. The simple way to avoid the problem is to have those contracts contain the ban.
[1] at least if it is more or less Christian. Rastafarians, Native American Church, Santeria followers have some issues. There have been issues in the past with non-locally dominant forms of Christianity such as Lutherans doing church services and Sunday school in German during the First World War in some states.
dee,
I asked an elder for his experienced observation of church discipline and he acted as if it is “commercial in confidence”. He could have changed the names dates and places!
Then the fact that one’s “assent signature” may be taken to be to any number of items of “wording” on “apparently this or that”, which may or may not be vaguely dangled.
Coupled with confusion about what a “confession” is in the first place and why it omits so much doctrine (while being wordy).
Employee contracts, no-compete agreements, non-disclosure agreements are written heavy on the intimidation-side … they benefit the employer, not the employee, to scare the employee into submission. Church membership contracts have the same objective, IMO. Doesn’t sound like a God-thing to me.
I have long been a fervent supporter of Jefferson’s Wall of Separation between Church and State.
To whit:
1)High School kids who hold Bible studies and prayer meetings on school grounds,
in no way establishes a State Religion, and to prevent them from freely
exercising their religion in such a manner is contrary to their religious liberty as
free citizens.
2)Nor can the State meddle in the internal affairs of said religion by compelling them
to marry same-sex couples in violation of their religious beliefs.
My childhood church was certainly afraid of outside influence, but it was even more deeply committed to community service—specifically because the lay volunteers did not want us to lose tax-free status. We had a very nice gym/auditorium, open to outside groups. We had meeting rooms, where AA and other organizations were free to gather. Our small colonial chapel and graveyard held a place in history that we were happy to describe in tours.
Things like these made our church an example and a leader, an asset to the larger community, a place of welcome, a unique old American place of worship, etc., etc., etc.
In worldly terms, they increased our power.
Many churches today seek power through exclusion and fear that outsiders will show up and wreck everything. I prefer the way we did it: Those neighborhood basketball players didn’t have three heads—and neither did we!
I think that is true. My daughter lives in a small town close to a large city. It is currently experiencing a boom as folks move from the city to commute to work from a nice crime-free community which has a great school and beautiful rural setting. The locals ain’t happy about that! They sit on city councils and school boards and are doing everything they can to discourage growth. They don’t want their little town to change. I know some of those folks … it’s all about power and control with them … some churches are no different.
Max–and Dee–in reference to Bob’s question:
I’m no lawyer. But the “legal contract” may only be hypothetical, unless the church member allows himself to be bullied and then to submit. The law really does prefer to stay out of church matters, unless it becomes a civil or a criminal matter.
If anyone leaves a church, and the church comes after them for purpose of discipline, and the person then tells the church to cease and desist, stop harassing me or I’ll call the police, then the law is on the side of that person, not the church. I believe it’s then a civil matter, not internal to the church.
Churches that insist that people must submit to these contracts are bluffing; but a lot of people allow themselves to be intimidated and to submit. If they submit, the law won’t get involved because it remains an internal church matter.
We’re in agreement here, Max, about the intimidation.
But with businesses trying to protect proprietary information, or intellectual property, this has some legal teeth. However, if the information involves knowledge of crimes committed within the business, the person signing the NDA is absolved from the contract and should go to the police. Same with a church. If a person blows the whistle on a pastor or other church leader involved in child sexual abuse, for example, no signature in the world should protect the abuser. It’s now a criminal matter, not a church matter. Bullying someone into following Matthew 18 is neither biblical nor legal.
It might be worth reading “ Christian Ministries and the Law: What Church and Para-Church Leaders Should Know © 1992, 1999 by H. Wayne House and in particular the case here mentioned – “ One such case that indicated a First Amendment nova and further contributed to the undermining of the First Amendment protection of religious rights was the Oklahoma court’s adjudication of the case Guinn v. The Church of Christ of Collinsville. In this case, the Oklahoma civil courts invoked jurisdiction in a religious dispute, which under the First Amendment and earlier U.S. Supreme Court decisions should have been left to the church’s ecclesiastical authorities. The question raised in Guinn was where a church’s right to discipline a member ends and the member’s right to privacy begins.” against that decision you have this – “ The first true clergy malpractice claim was brought fairly recently in California in the case of Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley. Walter and Maria Nally, parents of deceased Kenneth Nally, filed a complaint in a state court of California against Grace Community Church of the Valley and several individuals, including the senior pastor of the church, John MacArthur, Jr”. Guinn wins, the Nallys lose.
Lowlandseer,
Lowlandseer, I’m wondering if something got left out of that quote. This doesn’t look like church discipline and an internal church matter because of the “parents of deceased Kenneth Nally [who] filed a complaint in a state court of California against Grace Community Church of the Valley and several individuals.” This looks like a civil or criminal matter, assuming the “deceased” was a result of church abuse or negligence, whoever won or lost the case. And I’m no fan of MacArthur.
Except Guinn was no longer a member of the church when the action in question took place.
“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.”
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled
“Just as freedom to worship is protected by the First Amendment, so also is the liberty to recede from one’s religious allegiance.
The Court has long recognized that the key to maintaining a strong government while fostering the growth of cherished and respected forms of religious belief is to preserve the freedom to choose one’s individual genre of worship.”
She couldn’t find redress for actions before she resigned but she could after.
Just in general, a lot of people don’t know about laws that they must obey, or laws that protect them. How many young people have been thrown out of the house by their parents? State laws vary, but in general, if they are under 18, their parents have obligations to care for them. If they are 18 or older, they still have certain tenants’ rights.
Yet some parents assume they have a right to expel their child. That child usually goes away permanently, believing that the parents had full power to act.
Because it’s not only lawyers who can talk for three hours and say absolutely nothing.
THAT was the system in place during my high school days (c.1970) and it seemed to work pretty well.
And if at first you don’t succeed, GET A BIGGER HAMMER!
nor loving … too many pulpits just don’t treat the pew like they love them
Ted,
Erp,
I didn’t quote the whole section because it was quite lengthy. I think the key point in the Guinn case is that the Court had jurisdiction to intervene because Guinn had terminated her membership, having never been told that one of the terms of the contract was “lifetime commitment”
-“ The decision in the Guinn case concerning the right of privacy issue hinged on Guinn’s lack of knowledge of the Church of Christ’s doctrine that the religion considers membership to be a lifetime commitment. The indication in the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion is that had she been made aware of this doctrinal tenet, she would have relinquished her civil right to disassociate herself from the Church of Christ membership. According to the court’s opinion, the elders never contested Guinn’s claim that she was not taught the church’s prohibition against withdrawal of membership. Therefore, the court determined that Guinn’s testimony must be taken as true.
One cannot help but wonder what the outcome on the right of privacy issue in the Guinn case would have been had the church conducted some type of educational classes for new members. What if a document had been signed by Guinn stating that she had been taught the basic tenets of the Church of Christ doctrine, had understood its doctrinal beliefs, and submitted to its beliefs and discipline? Unfortunately for the Church of Christ in Collinsville, Oklahoma, none of these evidentiary factors were present in its case. Had these factors been present, the case may have been decided in the church’s favor.”
So there does appear to be a way of escape if the church doesn’t explicitly tell you it’s a lifelong commitment.
Or perhaps it was a narrow ruling. As a non-lawyer who never heard about this case, I really don’t know.
1) if the vast majority are of a certain Christian persuasion then it ostracises those not in the majority group. It’s backdoor peer pressure evangelism by the “cool kids”. All of us pay taxes for the upkeep of school buildings. Churches pay no taxes. The church already gets a free ticket. Worship there.
2) I agree. I still don’t understand why you’d want to have your union blessed by a god that considers that union a capital offense.
Bob,
I was wondering the same thing, how are the contract? I think most of the churches with the covenant documents are non-denominational. So, what can a non-dom church do to you if you just quit going and join another non-denominational or denominational church? Don’t get me wrong, I 100% do not agree with those silly membership covenants, but I don’t see what teeth the church you are leaving can sink into you.
Or write three-thousand words and still not say a goddang thing.
Several high school football teams have been baptized in horse troughs on public school grounds in recent years, even on the 50 yard line. Sure, the players could refrain, but will the coach ever put heathens into the game? Sure, they could leave the team in protest—freedom to quit, right?
Everybody pays taxes for the athletic facilities, coaches, and trainers, and here comes Coach, injecting religion—the Baptist flavor, if that was not obvious. These events are always presented as something the students requested, although sometimes they are led by local ministries while Coach absents himself for pure-hearted Constitutional reasons. Any opposition is painted as oppression, militant atheism, the work of outside agitators, an assault on freedom and By Golly We’re Not Going To Stand For This.
As a baptized Christian, I do not find horse-trough-and-garden-hose baptism at high schools to be a bold or dignified expression of Christianity in the US. It’s farcical and maybe even demeaning.
Priscilla,
Because not only are they interlinked in “associations” or “streams”, they are prejudicing society (in this case from the pulpit) against an individual.
They are also setting an example to other churches and to congregation members. How many of those congregation members will end up believers, though they may have been before all this started?
Michael in UK,
p.s churches I’ve witnessed close up, do one of two things:
– non-one knows anything about someone leaving (unless through personal acquaintanceship and at the person’s dicretion), OR
– (selectively) overtly explaining that someone left, and also explaining that they are NOT going to go through the procedure described in Guinn so that procedure is certainly known. I put “selectively” because the in crowd slip away after a row, while the villains are at least wished well. (Also anyone due for promotion elsewhere after a row is wished well.)
Easter is Christians’ favourite season because of all the lovely eggshells!
As a mere JD law librarian, not a practicing lawyer, I can only recommend that Dee consult a practicing lawyer on this question. I suspect that he or she will agree with my statements.–Bob Emery
The amount of sects & cults that have told me and my peers that, is “too many to be counted”! At the last one, and after years of solemn ceremonies, when I notified that I was reducing my attendance, they phoned me continually about volunteering several times a week so that forced me to avoid them altogether. Then when I turned up at their “parent gathering” they were all over me. I learned afterwards some reasons why they like to be in your face and keep a low profile at the same time.
BTW church order = doctrine
talking about doctrine = gossip
I am in agreement.
And these things have to be weighed on a case-by-case basis.
As with anything, there will always be abuses, same with the right to keep and bear arms.
A local church-as-entertainment baptized 400 in their parking lot on a Sunday afternoon in an inflatable swimming pool. A huge spectacle, it made the evening news. It was a festive fun-filled atmosphere which bordered on irreverent, IMHO. Shortly after that event, the cool (married) pastor resigned abruptly when it was revealed that he was having an affair with a church member … that also made the evening news. Things like this give unbelievers yet another reason to say “See, there’s nothing to it.”
Alas, not just the unbelievers. Preachers have been on radio for a century, on TV and online for decades—and it’s not just an act of kindness for shut-ins. Back when most Americans attended church a few times a year (or more), most people knew the difference between a worship service and a freak show. Now I worry that traditional churches, such as mine, are the odd ones, and hard to explain. It’s dispiriting.
You read my mind….
This is why I’m done.
So why do I comment? I just want to confirm to everyone that there is life after religion. And yes, it’s better the farther I move past it.
Wherever you lie on the faith spectrum, you have complete freedom.
I agree.
Meanwhile, the Kingdom of God continues to grow on the earth in the here and now. One of my grandsons was baptized today … another dedicated to the Lord. It was a great day for our family.
… with no signed membership contracts needed!
And with you as their grandpa, they’ll know to steer clear of them. Congratulations, Max.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Pingback: Academia’s Missing | Chamblee54