This is good practice for example lets look at discipline in your own home. If your child is misbehaving you dont yell at them in front of all their other siblings do you. First you go to them alone. If they dont listen then you call on the seond witness...say if you are mum, then you call dad and then you both deal with the child. Only after thry still havent listened would you tell all the other members of the family, and if still not repentant, and this is extreme, would you consider a divorce. I mean, a banishment. Maybe to a treehouse. But they are always welcome to come back when they get hungry.
I agree to a certain point on discipline but I think it will not be apple to apple: Parental obligation to discipline a minor has some added Parental rights of being a parent to insist… btw: One cannot choose change parent
Although it may not be apple to apple to compare to Congregation-member relationship: one has the right to change their congregation.
I think the reason why the “the Church or more correct word I think: the “congregation” lost the case is that:
Their argument is a member remains a part of the congregation for life. Even citing religious freedom that leaving the congregation is “constitutionally impermissible”
But, the law, thankfully imo, think otherwise, the decision says: Just as freedom to worship is protected by the First Amendment, so also is the liberty to recede from one's religious allegiance"
https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1989/10494.html
¶25 In defense of their actions the Elders claim that the Church of Christ has no doctrinal provision for withdrawal of membership. According to their beliefs, a member remains a part of the congregation for life. Like those who are born into a family, they may leave but they can never really sever the familial bond. A court's determination that Parishioner effectively withdrew her membership and thus her consent to submit to church doctrine would, according to the Elders, be a constitutionally impermissible state usurpation of religious discipline accomplished through judicial interference.
¶26 The Elders had never been confronted with a member who chose to withdraw from the church. Because disciplinary proceedings against Parishioner had already commenced when she withdrew her membership, the Elders concluded their actions could not be hindered by her withdrawal and would be protected by the First Amendment. Parishioner relies on her September 24, 1981 handwritten letter to the Elders in which she unequivocally stated that she withdrew her membership and terminated her consent to being treated as a member of the Church of Christ communion. By common-law standards we find her communication was an effective withdrawal of her membership and of her consent to religious discipline.
¶27 Just as freedom to worship is protected by the First Amendment, so also is the liberty to recede from one's religious allegiance.
Last edited: