If a church member commits adultery, and the elders enact church discipline via informing the congregation of their sin, is that an invasion of privacy? That’s the issue a couple of churches in Texas are facing since they have been sued by their congregants for doing just this.
Andy and Seni, I’d be interested to get your legal take on this.
This brings up an important matter: the proper interpretation of I Timothy 5:20–“Those guilty of sin must be rebuked before all, as a warning to the rest.” Many pastors understand this passage to mean they are to publicly rebuke saints for personal moral failure. Many use this passage as an excuse to publicly rebuke saints for violating certain pastoral standards as well. Does this verse give them authority to do either? The answer is a resounding NO! The context makes it abundantly clear that those to be rebuked are elders who sin. Consider the preceding verses:
Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. 5:18 For the scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his pay.” 5:19 Do not accept an accusation against an elder unless it can be confirmed by two or three witnesses. (5:17-19)
The reason elders are to be rebuked is because of their leadership role. Others are following them as they follow Christ. If they are not following Christ, those following them need to know. Furthermore, if the sin is hidden rather than publicly dealt with it opens the church up to the charge of mishandling and cover-up. Just ask the Catholic Church! But when it comes to non-elders it is a different story. According to Proverbs 10:12 “love covers all sins.” I Peter 4:8 says “love covers a multitude of sins.” Love seeks to hide the moral failures of the repentant, not make them public.
Thinking to Believe 
October 9, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Wow, this is a really interesting problem for churches to deal with. Before I provide my response, I must say that each case is different and without reviewing the facts of the case there is no way to make a true assessment of which way this would go.
With that said, just on the face of what you have presented this would seem to possibly fit into one of the torts commonly labeled as invasion of privacy – public disclosure of private facts. There are four elements that must be met for a plaintiff to recover for this tort: 1) publication, 2) private facts, 3) highly offensive to a reasonable person, and 4) not of legitimate public interest.
I don’t remember exactly what the exact requirements are for each element, but two of the elements are likely to be met easily, while the other two may be somewhat more difficult. I think most reasonable people would agree that committing adultery is a private fact and that publication of it by someone would be highly offensive.
Publication is one of the areas that I think may be more difficult. I’m trying to remember, but I think there might have been a requirement that the publication had to be pretty wide spread. If that is the case, then the size of the church may make a difference and most churches will not qualify to serve a wide spread publication. If it’s not the case, then pronouncing it in front of the church will be sufficient.
The next area is that the facts not be of legitimate public interest. I think you’ve made a pretty good argument that lay people’s sins should not be broadcast from a biblical standpoint. I think that also helps to show that this is not likely to be considered something of legitimate public interest in a legal sense – emphasis on legitimate. Unfortunately there are many in our churches that think that this kind of information is of public interest and it may be of tabloidal public interest, however, it is not likely to be legitimately in the public interest.
Therefore, in a general sense this could grounds for a cause of action for public disclosure of private facts. I guess my question to you would be the propriety of a believer seeking legal action against a fellow brother (namely their pastor)… I seem to recall a passage of scripture that warns against this kind of thing. Anyway, this is just off the top of my head and not based on any research of any kind – and this is in no way legal advice for anyone reading.
LikeLike
October 12, 2006 at 12:02 am
Andy,
You sound so much like a lawyer. You begin and end even blog posts with legal disclaimers! Ha!
So it sounds like we could actually see churches lose a legal battle on this issue. As opposed as I am to pastor’s publically rebuking lay people for private sins, that worries me.
I wouldn’t think the fact that these pastors are misinterpreting Scripture would matter legally, because the court can’t take that into consideration without becoming an arbiter of doctrinal matters. Whether the interpretation is right or wrong, it is a religious-based, Bible derived practice, and a means of church discipline.
Yes, in I Cor 7 Paul berated the Corinthians for suing other believers. Of course, if these people are cheating on their spouse, we shouldn’t expect them to be worried about other, less important Biblical teachings such as this!
Jason
LikeLike
October 13, 2006 at 11:26 am
As I stated, there is a potential that PASTORS may lose legal battles in this regard. I’m not so sure why this worries you though. Why shouldn’t a person responsible for harmful speech not be punished just because it is done from behind a pulpit. If you claim that he should be able to do this under the “Free Exerice” clause of the 1st Amendment then there is a whole can of worms that this opens up for scrutiny.
When claiming the right to do certain things under the Free Exercise clause the court will look to whether or not this is really a sincere belief. Even if it is, however, is not dispositive of whether it will be allowed. An example of this would be polygamy (which you have mentioned in another post). The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) has a sincere belief that plural marriages are necessary to get to the highest levels of heaven. There is little question whether this is sincere, most commentators believe that it is. Up to this point, the courts have not stated that they can exercise this right based on their sincere beliefs (obviously the case you mentioned in you other post has a potential to change that, but who knows).
The point here is that the law in US requires pastors to be careful in how they treat people. You’re right that this will not likely depend on what the interpretation is of the Bible passage, but if a pastor really believes that the Bible tells him to do this, he may have to be willing to suffer the economic penalities that his beliefs lead him to.
LikeLike
October 15, 2006 at 10:27 pm
I know the church is subject to the laws of the land, but the church has its own internal operations that the world does not always understand or agree with. Let’s just say that the Timothy passage did apply to non-ministers. What then? Rebuking people publically for sin would be a requirement. It scares me to think that the government can tell the church what kind of discipline it can engage in and what kind it cannot, when the Bible may require it (obviously I’m not talking about flogging or something like that).
In fact, I might argue that at times it is appropriate for a pastor to deal publically with someone’s sin, and he should not have to fear legal action for exercising his spiritual oversight. For example, what if an extra-marital affair involving a prominent family is widely known in a church. If the pastor is silent about the issue the church could interpret that to mean the pastor is ok with it. A public rebuke for a public sin (or publically known sin) might be appropriate under certain circumstances to let the church know that the matter has been dealt with, and I don’t think the government should not interfere with that.
Jason
LikeLike
October 16, 2006 at 7:40 am
There is a huge difference (legally) between your initial fact pattern and the issue of a well-known marital affair. The tort in question is publication of PRIVATE facts. With something that is widely known, the pastor would not be liable because the fact is not private at the time he discusses it.
I know you just brought this example up to try and prove a point and there may be other situations that you would think are appropriate for a pastor to do that the law might not agree with (I’m having trouble thinking of one right now). But my concern is that too many people in Christian circles see the law as the enemy of the church. I think this why many inappropriate things get covered up and not reported to police. One of the greatest examples is the Catholic church’s handling of sexual misconduct with minors by priests.
The more we have a “knee-jerk” reaction to be concerned about every situation that the law may apply to the church the more opportunity we have to end up with large problems like we are seeing in the Catholic church. Any law can be twisted to achieve something it was not intended (just like any verse can be twisted to “prove” and idea it was not meant to convey) and I think that pastors and church members just need to be aware of how thier actions can affect them legally. If we tend to treat people with love and respect, I don’t think that we will have too many problems with the law.
LikeLike
October 16, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Good point about my example.
I know you were speaking in general terms, but for the record I don’t see the law as the enemy of the church. I don’t think the church should be a law unto itself. We are admonished in the Bible to submit ourselves to the laws and governors. Of course, when there is a conflict between the law and the Gospel, we are admonished to choose the Gospel.
I’m just concerned that a day will come when the church will not be able to carry on its affairs as it does now because the world does not approve of it. As much as I am opposed to calling people out from the pulpit, and naming their sin, if that is what people want to submit themselves to in the name of religion, have at it. I can’t imagine that these people who are suing the churches didn’t know that these churches practiced that form of discipline for moral failure, and yet they chose to stay. I’m not saying that justifies the actions of these pastors (I don’t know enough about the case to say one way or the other), but don’t willingly attend a church you think engages in illegal and immoral behavior, and then sue them when you are their target. But now my critique has turned from
I think you said it best when you wrote, “If we tend to treat people with love and respect, I don’t think that we will have too many problems with the law.” Very true.
LikeLike