Church Discipline

[IveyLeaguer]

... Can you show me where it has ever been accepted a resignation from membership?

I'll say it again. The idea that a member cannot resign membership from a local church without permission from the church is ludicrous.

The church should accept her "resignation" as evidence of her refusal to repent and thus bringing on thier due action to publicly remove her from their church role.

If she resigns under pressure of the second step of discipline without repentance, as in this case, the matter is self-evident. It is also over. The biblical application of church discipline has worked. To have a 'public hearing' of a former member after fellowship has been broken in order to publicly 'stone her for her sin', so that the church can shout from the housetop its intolerance of sin, is unbiblical, legalistic, and reeks of self-righteousness.

The discipline has already worked as God designed it. Whatever you add to it beyond that, is itself sin. Also, the local church has no authority to reject her resignation. Where are you getting this stuff?

It is not under her authority to remove herself else she is usurping authority over the church in its automony ... People take church membership too lightly as evidenced in this thread. Too often people think the church is a public domain when it is an institution of God, not man's.

Again, where are you getting this stuff?

It sounds to me like you have a flawed view of autonomy and the authority of the local church. The church is not in some kind of intercessory position for its members. That office is held by Jesus Christ. The church cannot restore a sinner to God, nor does the relationship of the sinner to God pass through the local church.

Church discipline is very important, but is not practiced in most churches today, which is a key reason the church is in such a sad state and rapidly getting worse. But it must be done the right way, Biblically, in order to work properly.

Public hangings of sinners by churches, like this case which is beyond the Biblical discipline God authorizes, is destructive to the cause of Christ, not helpful. Besides, it is always better if these matters remain private. It is a local church matter, and should be handled with love, respect, dignity, and discretion.

In this case, rather than a public scene, this church should have issued a public statement (since the matter became public) that, regretfully and sadly, the member had resigned her membership, and the matter was closed. Then, privately, the pastor should have formally, and quietly, announced to the congregation what had taken place, which should take about a minute since the matter had been buzzing at a high speed for some time, and then the pastor should have led the congregation in prayer for the former member.

Done the right way, the discipline would have worked and also would have been a testimony to other believers, and to some extent the world, just as God intended it to be. Instead, HIS church and His cause have become a laughingstock to the rest of Christianity and the world.

:saint:

 

[Salamander]

Actually IVy, I think you're way off base here. It is due process for the church to go ahead with business. You are right it is "over", but with God it is better for her to come back and apologize for her misconduct.

No one has ever said they are to stone her for anything, all we've said is she is to be removed from the role!

You seem to have previous issues that need to be addressed concerning church discipline.

 

[Jim1999]

sorry and thank you, the two hardest things to say, I fear.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[saturneptune]

Actually IVy, I think you're way off base here.

Given normal probability, to me that means Ivy has a 99.9% chance of being correct.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Actually IVy, I think you're way off base here. It is due process for the church to go ahead with business. You are right it is "over", but with God it is better for her to come back and apologize for her misconduct.

What!!!!?????? :laugh:

If it is over, if the matter is closed, then how can it be due process for the church to go ahead with business??? The business of doing what???

No one has ever said they are to stone her for anything

Spiritually, that's exactly what this church did, and what you have been defending, when they continued unbiblically with the 3rd step.

... all we've said is she is to be removed from the role!

Why would you leave her on the roll after she resigned? You don't have to destroy the process just to remove her from the roll. The physical process of removal from the roll is the least important thing in the process anyway.

You seem to have previous issues that need to be addressed concerning church discipline.

One of us has some baggage on the issue, that's for sure.

:saint:

 

[matt wade]

If it is over, if the matter is closed, then how can it be due process for the church to go ahead with business??? The business of doing what???

Spiritually, that's exactly what this church did, and what you have been defending, when they continued unbiblically with the 3rd step.

It's unbiblical to stop at the second step unless the sinner has repented.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I don't see where the scripture says after step two "If he decides he won't listen to you anymore stop here". No...it says "if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it"! The scripture clearly tells us the only way to stop in between steps is if the sinner hears and repents. After the third step is when the sinner can be let go.

Sorry, but you can't just redefine the steps to suit yourself.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

It's unbiblical to stop at the second step unless the sinner has repented.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I don't see where the scripture says after step two "If he decides he won't listen to you anymore stop here". No...it says "if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it"! The scripture clearly tells us the only way to stop in between steps is if the sinner hears and repents. After the third step is when the sinner can be let go.

Sorry, but you can't just redefine the steps to suit yourself.

When the member resigns their membership, he/she is no longer under the authority of the local church. The church has fulfilled its obligation to discipline the member and is therefore relieved of its responsibility. The former member is then to be regarded as an unbeliever.

Please read the thread before you accuse me of adding to or changing the Word of God to suit my self-righteous purposes. That is what the church in this example did, and what a few here are trying to defend, the error of which I am doing my very best to point out, for the edification of all and to the glory of God.

:jesus:

 

[matt wade]

When the member resigns their membership, he/she is no longer under the authority of the local church. The church has fulfilled its obligation to discipline the member and is therefore relieved of its responsibility. The former member is then to be regarded as an unbeliever.

I'll have to use this arguement if I ever get arrested. When they attempt to place me in cuffs I'll simply denounce my citizenship

Please read the thread before you accuse me of adding to or changing the Word of God to suit my self-righteous purposes. That is what the church in this example did, and what a few here are trying to defend, the error of which I am doing my very best to point out, for the edification of all and to the glory of God.

I didn't attempt to accuse you of anything, sorry if you took it that way. I don't believe, however, that the church changed God's Word. I think they've followed it to the letter.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

I'll have to use this arguement if I ever get arrested. When they attempt to place me in cuffs I'll simply denounce my citizenship

That is a category mistake and a misleading straw man. What makes you think a local church member can remain under the authority of a local church and be bound to them against their will, even after formal steps have been taken by the member to sever the relationship?

I don't believe, however, that the church changed God's Word. I think they've followed it to the letter.

If they had, it wouldn't have become a public relations circus and the church in question, and the cause of Christ, would not have become a laughingstock, as I've already pointed out.

:jesus:

 

[annsni]

That is a category mistake and a misleading straw man. What makes you think a local church member can remain under the authority of a local church and be bound to them against their will, even after formal steps have been taken by the member to sever the relationship?

I didn't see where formal steps were taken by the member to sever the relationship. I've been privy to a number of church discipline issues and in some of the cases, the member refused to be disciplined and said basically, "Fine. I'll leave your stupid church." and walk away. That is not revoking their membership. They didn't walk in the church and say "I'm joining your wonderful church." and suddenly be members. There's a process. IF the person chose to disfellowship themselves, that's fine - but it might still be a case of the congregation needing to know the why behind their disappearance (if there was a case of criminal activity that could harm others especially). But that step would not be to restore the person but to let the others know why the person left to curtail further harm.

If they had, it wouldn't have become a public relations circus and the church in question, and the cause of Christ, would not have become a laughingstock, as I've already pointed out.

Ummm - WHO made it a public relations circus? If the woman followed Scripture, would she have gone to the news? I think not. A person who is truly saved and follows Scripture might not be happy about being caught in their sin but they will soon repent of their ways. She did not. Let's compare her response to David. David tore his clothing and wept for his sin. Do you think he would have gone to the news saying "They're going to tell my children in front of the whole church!!" or do you think he would have gone before those who he sinned against and confess? I do think it is the latter. This woman brought this whole thing on herself. Do not blame the church for following Christ's command. It NEVER would have become a public relations circus ever with the way the church was dealing with it. I know we've had similar situations and you've never heard of OUR church in the news, have you?

 

[matt wade]

That is a category mistake and a misleading straw man. What makes you think a local church member can remain under the authority of a local church and be bound to them against their will, even after formal steps have been taken by the member to sever the relationship?

What I am saying is that the church is duty bound to finish the discipline, whether or not the offender wishes it finished. Each of the steps has a purpose beyond getting the offender to repent. In step one, the one on one conversation, it is possible that the accuser is mistaken. This first step allows the two parties to talk it through and if there was a misconception it can be resolved privately. The second step brings in more parties and is basically a safety check to make sure that the first accuser wasn't out of line. Now, once we are at the third step, and there is no repentance, it is time to tell the church (the other people in fellowship with the offender). Obviously the church is still attempting reconciliation and hopes that the offender repents, but the second purpose is to inform the church of the situation so that rumors don't abound and false truths appear.

If the offender can simply remove themselves from the process and stop the process, then it isn't carried through and the church never understands that they are to not fellowship with this person. Following your guidelines, the offender would leave the church in an air of mystery and disharmony in the church would follow. The church needs to be informed of the what has taken place.

If they had, it wouldn't have become a public relations circus and the church in question, and the cause of Christ, would not have become a laughingstock, as I've already pointed out.

So you believe that a church that follows God's word will not be mocked by the media and the world at large? That's exactly what it sounds like you are saying, that if the church had been in God's will that this would have never had happened. I hate to tell you, but many people in God's will are mocked and ridiculed in this day and age. I seem to remember some scripture that tells us that it will happen as well .

 

[IveyLeaguer]

I didn't see where formal steps were taken by the member to sever the relationship.

Telling the pastor point blank on the telephone, more than once, then sending in a formal letter of resignation, are not formal enough steps for you? What would you consider formal??

I've been privy to a number of church discipline issues and in some of the cases, the member refused to be disciplined and said basically, "Fine. I'll leave your stupid church." and walk away. That is not revoking their membership. They didn't walk in the church and say "I'm joining your wonderful church." and suddenly be members. There's a process.

I'm not referring to some other case, only this one.

Nevertheless, please show me where a member can break fellowship, and formally resign from a local church, but still be under the authority of that local church against their will. Please show me where the local church has perpetual responsibility and authority over a former member unless the local church itself relinquishes that authority. That is the issue. If you can show me that in the scriptures, I will be happy to be proven wrong on that point. But my next question might be, 'If the woman committed suicide after the local church continued to refuse to accept her resignation, would the local church still have authority over the woman?'

After all, the 3rd step would have yet to be carried out ....

IF the person chose to disfellowship themselves, that's fine - but it might still be a case of the congregation needing to know the why behind their disappearance ... But that step would not be to restore the person but to let the others know why the person left to curtail further harm.

Yes, that's what I've been beating my head against the wall trying to explain. After the member's resignation, there is no need for the 3rd step, only a brief summary to inform the congregation that the matter of discipline was closed. Please see the latter part of my post #161 where I discuss that very point.

And that's what should have happened in this case. Additionally, this person not only chose to disfellowship themselves, but also formally resigned. That's why I keep saying the pastor certainly should summarize the case before the congregation, and that's all that's necessary.

But to carry out a 3rd step of discipline, after the matter was closed, was unnecessary and unbiblical. It is also why the process is a laughingstock to the Christian community, as Dr. Bock of DTS alluded to in the article.

Ummmm - WHO made it a public relations circus?

I'm not referring to the originator of the public circus. I've never defended the woman.

What I've said is, had the church used good judgment and discretion, and had not continued the process after the member broke fellowship and resigned, then the church would not have looked foolish to the Christian community at large, or perhaps even to the world. Even the world is not completely without common sense. Since the matter became public it could have been, without question, an outstanding example of church discipline properly applied, and with dignity and discretion, which would have benefited greatly the Christian church at large, since church discipline has been ignored by most of the church for some time.

But that opportunity was lost when the church took it upon themselves to go further than scripture and its principles prescribed, and executed discipline upon a person who was not even a member of their body.

:saint:

 

[annsni]

Telling the pastor point blank on the telephone, more than once, then sending in a formal letter of resignation, are not formal enough steps for you? What would you consider formal??

I did not see where there was a formal letter of resignation.

Nevertheless, please show me where a member can break fellowship, and formally resign from a local church, but still be under the authority of that local church against their will.

If there was a formal letter of resignation, then the church no longer has authority over this person. However, if there is going to be a situation where the church will be bad-mouthed by the former member or if there was a case of the church needing to be made known of the basic situation for safety purposes (for example, a child molester who left the church), then it is right for the church to inform it's congregation of the issues.

Please show me where the local church has perpetual responsibility and authority over a former member unless the local church itself relinquishes that authority. That is the issue. If you can show me that in the scriptures, I will be happy to be proven wrong on that point. But my next question might be, 'If the woman committed suicide after the local church continued to refuse to accept her resignation, would the local church still have authority over the woman?'

If there was a formal letter of resignation, then it is right for the church to leave her be.

After all, the 3rd step would have yet to be carried out ....

In this case, the third step was never carried out. The woman herself let the cat out of the bag so to speak. That is her own fault.

Yes, that's what I've been beating my head against the wall trying to explain. After the member's resignation, there is no need for the 3rd step, only a brief summary to inform the congregation that the matter of discipline was closed. Please see the latter part of my post #161 where I discuss that very point.

I agree with you.

And that's what should have happened in this case. Additionally, this person not only chose to disfellowship themselves, but also formally resigned. That's why I keep saying the pastor certainly should summarize the case before the congregation, and that's all that's necessary.

Disfellowshipping does not mean that you have stepped out of the authority of the local church. You are still a member. If you resign, that's a different story.

But to carry out a 3rd step of discipline, after the matter was closed, was unnecessary and unbiblical. It is also why the process is a laughingstock to the Christian community, as Dr. Bock of DTS alluded to in the article.

I'm not referring to the originator of the public circus. I've never defended the woman.

What I've said is, had the church used good judgment and discretion, and had not continued the process after the member broke fellowship and resigned, then the church would not have looked foolish to the Christian community at large, or perhaps even to the world. Even the world is not completely without common sense. Since the matter became public it could have been, without question, an outstanding example of church discipline properly applied, and with dignity and discretion, which would have benefited greatly the Christian church at large, since church discipline has been ignored by most of the church for some time.

But that opportunity was lost when the church took it upon themselves to go further than scripture and its principles prescribed, and executed discipline upon a person who was not even a member of their body.

:saint:

I just re-read the article. The church was heading to the third step and THEN she resigned. She then went to tell the news.

Hancock sent a formal letter of resignation after receiving the elders' ultimatum in hopes of solving the dispute. She said she fears for her 20-year-old son and 18-year-old daughter if the church carries out its threat.

“I don’t really care what they do to me. But I am concerned about my children sitting in church with their mother being crucified by the church that they trust,” she said. “I am very concerned about how it would affect them.”

From the article itself, it seems she resigned AFTER the letter of notice of heading to step #3. She then went to the news. The church did not. They did nothing as far as step #3 other than planning to go there before they received the letter of resignation.

So in this case, the church did things in the correct, Biblical way. They did not move on to step #3 - and the foolish woman made sure everyone knew anyway.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

What I am saying is that the church is duty bound to finish the discipline, whether or not the offender wishes it finished. Each of the steps has a purpose beyond getting the offender to repent. In step one, the one on one conversation, it is possible that the accuser is mistaken. This first step allows the two parties to talk it through and if there was a misconception it can be resolved privately. The second step brings in more parties and is basically a safety check to make sure that the first accuser wasn't out of line. Now, once we are at the third step, and there is no repentance, it is time to tell the church (the other people in fellowship with the offender). Obviously the church is still attempting reconciliation and hopes that the offender repents, but the second purpose is to inform the church of the situation so that rumors don't abound and false truths appear.

If the offender can simply remove themselves from the process and stop the process, then it isn't carried through and the church never understands that they are to not fellowship with this person. Following your guidelines, the offender would leave the church in an air of mystery and disharmony in the church would follow. The church needs to be informed of the what has taken place.

Goodness brother, I must ask you again to please read the thread. I've covered all this already.

As I've pointed out, there is a difference in summarizing the matter and informing the congregation that the matter is closed, and carrying out before the congregation a 'trial of the sins' of a former member, which the 3rd step requires. And, as I've already indicated, in this particular case it is highly unlikely there is any member of the church who is not wholly familiar with every sordid detail, so a summary should be very brief in this case. But that's not what this church did. According to the article, they carried out a full scale 'trial of the sins' this past Sunday.

So you believe that a church that follows God's word will not be mocked by the media and the world at large?

Of course not.

Quite the opposite. In fact, I've suspected for years that the true church (ekklesia) will one day soon be persecuted, not only by the world, but by the professed Christian church at large, including 'evangelicals'.

That's exactly what it sounds like you are saying, that if the church had been in God's will that this would have never had happened.

Not at all.

Please see my post # 172, above.

... many people in God's will are mocked and ridiculed in this day and age. I seem to remember some scripture that tells us that it will happen as well .

Absolutely agree.

:saint:

 

[Salamander]

Since when is it ever in the authoritive position of a member to tell any church they cannot follow the paths of Scripture even if they do take actions to "resign"?

Surely the church leadership should take actions using discernment on whether to continue or just let the bud fall off the tree.

But what I am questioning is whether or not any member has this authority to "tell the church off" by resigning, of which this woman has clearly been exposed of doing. If she hadn't went to the news media it couldn't be viewed as if she had.

Even though she has resigned, this church has autonomous rights to govern itsself no matter who likes it.

I believe it is to the best of ones good to know what and who they are joining up with before they do!

 

[Tom Butler]

If someone resigns church membership for whatever reason, the membership has ended. Were this to happen at my congregation, the clerk would simply inform the congregation that she has resigned her membership and that her name would be removed from the roll.

If further explanation is required, simply announce that a disciplinary process was underway, that the member had resigned in the middle of it, and no further congregational action is necessary.

 

[Salamander]

Yes, I agree, but since this was made a public spectacle, i believe the church should at least follow through with their not accepting her resignation and putting her off the roll. Going into the sordid details of her sins would not be edifying to anyone in this case, but it would help to preserve the authority of the church over her and prevent her havany authority over the church.

I believe this brings into question just who has authority over the membership in this case where she thinks her resignation keeps the church from going ahead with its actions.

Me personally? I would make it a matter of a public statement as the following: This woman has decided to remain in her sin. She has expressed the feeling of being separated from this assembly by resignation. We as a church have addressed her sin to her alone. She has incorporated outside sources to bring a reproach upon this church and its following Biblical proceedures. We no longer will pursue any further actions other than removing her from our role. No discussing of this action will be done in any future business meeting and it is the express directive from the pastor that it is not to be discussed by the members as a preventativew measure to avoid gossip. If anyone has any questions about the decision of the church it must be asked of the pastor accompanied by at least two other deacons, although we see no real need for that coming about. It has been to sole duty to restore her in the spirit of meekness and in charity we find expressed in I Cor 13. This issue remains closed except if she, the woman who is now removed, comes back to apologize for her sinful actions and repents of her open sin which we have addressed.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

I did not see where there was a formal letter of resignation.

Again, here are the facts:

“(Hancock) told (the church), ... ‘I'm not going any further — I’m never coming here again,’”...

Her boyfriend said the church wouldn’t let it end there. “The pastor kept calling her, and I informed him that she [Hancock] would appreciate it if neither he nor any member of his church contacted her ever again,”

Almost two months later, Hancock received the letter from the elders of Grace Community Church, explaining that she had left them no choice but to continue the disciplinary process.

Hancock sent a formal letter of resignation after receiving the elders' ultimatum in hopes of solving the dispute.

HERE'S THE ARTICLE AGAIN​

I don't know how it could be more clear - the woman resigned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If there was a formal letter of resignation, then the church no longer has authority over this person.

THANK YOU.
​

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

However, if there is going to be a situation where the church will be bad-mouthed by the former member or if there was a case of the church needing to be made known of the basic situation for safety purposes (for example, a child molester who left the church), then it is right for the church to inform it's congregation of the issues.

OK, but the thread is about this case, let's not do hypotheticals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If there was a formal letter of resignation, then it is right for the church to leave her be.

THANK YOU.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In this case, the third step was never carried out ...

According to the article it was to be, this past Sunday, January 4th. And in all its sordid glory, and all for nothing.

Maybe someone can find out if it actually was carried out. Hopefully, someone in the Christian community helped the pastor see the light and they handled it properly.

Either way, the church was wrong in going forward.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Disfellowshipping does not mean that you have stepped out of the authority of the local church. You are still a member.

She did much more than just break fellowship. And I quote:

"I cannot believe you people are doing this. I’m not going any further — I’m never coming here again."

"... informed (the pastor) that she [Hancock] would appreciate it if neither he nor any member of his church contacted her ever again."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you resign, that's a different story.

THANK YOU.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just re-read the article. The church was heading to the third step and THEN she resigned. She then went to tell the news.

Thanks for re-reading it. That's been the case all along. Even if it was new information, it changes nothing.

First, her repeated verbal resignations should have been wholly sufficient. At the very least, the church should have suspended any action, if for some strange reason they could have doubted the woman was serious. But for those who would require physical evidence, the church had her formal letter weeks before they planned to carry out step 3, on January 4th.

Remember, there is a big difference between carrying out step 3, and informing the congregation that the matter was closed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So in this case, the church did things in the correct, Biblical way.

Hopefully, it is clear to all by now that they did not, that the church fowled it up royally.

Unfortunately, the church exercised poor judgment, and went too far with the process, apparently misapplying a passage of scripture much the way the brother did above, and effectively ruined the process.

God Bless.

raying:

 

[annsni]

Again, here are the facts:

I don't know how it could be more clear - the woman resigned.

Saying that you're leaving the church and that you do not want to be contacted again is not a resignation. A letter is. It is an official capacity. Period

According to the article it was to be, this past Sunday, January 4th. And in all its sordid glory, and all for nothing.

Yes, it was to be carried out this week - before her letter of resignation arrived.

Maybe someone can find out if it actually was carried out. Hopefully, someone in the Christian community helped the pastor see the light and they handled it properly.

Either way, the church was wrong in going forward.

No - they were following Christ's direct command.

much more than just break fellowship. And I quote:
------

First, her repeated verbal resignations should have been wholly sufficient. At the very least, the church should have suspended any action, if for some strange reason they could have doubted the woman was serious. But for those who would require physical evidence, the church had her formal letter weeks before they planned to carry out step 3, on January 4th.

"I'm never coming back" does not mean that you are removed from the membership of a church. "I want to come here all the time" does not make you a member of a church. It is an official process.

"Never contact me again" also does not remove a member from a church.

Remember, there is a big difference between carrying out step 3, and informing the congregation that the matter was closed.

Yes there is. However there is no evidence that the church did either.

]Hopefully, it is clear to all by now that they did not, that the church fowled it up royally.

Unfortunately, the church exercised poor judgment, and went too far with the process, apparently misapplying a passage of scripture much the way the brother did above, and effectively ruined the process.

Umm - it's clear to me that a woman was caught in a sin - was approached about the sin Biblically. She refused to listen and the church was on it's way to the final step of church discipline when she told them "Leave me alone - I'm never coming back - don't contact me". She was still a member of the church until she OFFICIALLY removed herself from the church membership via letter to the pastor/deacon board/elders or whatever the governing body of the church is. Who exercised poor judgment? The fool who went to the news because she was afraid of how it would affect her children. Yeah - THAT is smart.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

Since when is it ever in the authoritive position of a member to tell any church they cannot follow the paths of Scripture even if they do take actions to "resign"?

Surely the church leadership should take actions using discernment on whether to continue or just let the bud fall off the tree.

But what I am questioning is whether or not any member has this authority to "tell the church off" by resigning, of which this woman has clearly been exposed of doing. If she hadn't went to the news media it couldn't be viewed as if she had.

Even though she has resigned, this church has autonomous rights to govern itsself no matter who likes it.

Sorry, but you've given no indication so far that you even understand the matter. I don't mean this personally, the Lord bless you, brother (or sister).

And as was pointed out much earlier, you and a few others seem to have a distorted view of the local church and its autonomy. FWIW, it sounds to me like a view that consists of man-made, legalistic, Baptist dogma, so typical of many Baptist churches over the years.
raying: