Read the links....very much worth the TL;DR, imo.

Cliffs: Jordan and Karen Root were missionaries and 'covenant' members of The Village Church (TVC) in Dallas, TX, which is a congregation of the Southern Baptists. Jordan has admitted to pedophilia and viewing child pornography. The first letter below is an official document of TVC, how they have addressed the issues of sin with Jordan, and how Karen has refused the counsel of TVC.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/266531116/...nd-Jordan-Root


This second letter is Karen Hinkley's (formerly Root) response to TVC.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/266092498/...rly-Karen-Root

And this is TVC Pastor Matt Younger's letter to Karen Hinkley:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/263544868/...-to-Karen-Root



Christians: Is TVC's position scripturally defensible? What about that of Karen Hinkley?

My first reaction to reading the OP was that I was going to be outraged. Then what I read from the Church seemed shockingly reasonable and compassionate: remove the person from a position of risk, report to the relevant authorities, and still attempt to care for the individual. My concern is that what people say and what they do are often different and, moreover, that what the Church may see as providing support may be inferior to directing the man to a properly qualified therapist. Certainly it seems as though Karen Hinkley doesn't feel that they've treated her well in her time of need.

Where things went a bit sour is when I read "we have been perplexed by your decision to file for an annulment". Really? You don't understand why the first thing she'd want to do is get away from this scumbag? I don't know what's scripturally correct here, but it certainly shouldn't perplex anyone looking at her reaction. And then the Church goes on to say that she cannot resign from the Church. I'm not sure I can defend any Church ever saying "you're not permitted to leave". In their efforts to be kind they're almost becoming callous to exactly how awful her ex-husband had been.

Thanks for posting this KBC,

I am really interested because our Bible Study uses a lot of materials from TVC. Also the leaders of our bible study seem to really love TVC and speak highly of them.

I have been involved with Christian missions scene for my whole life (even as a kid) so I am also interested in that angle.

This is one line I found hilarious:

SIM, or any of the Christian missionary orgs. are ill equipped for an investigation of this nature.

I call BS on the part in the Q&A where they say SIM has a highly trained team for dealing with stuff like this. This is just another way of saying "we were hoping we could make this disappear without telling anyone".

The phrasing "Covenant Members" makes my spidey sense tingle. This phrasing makes me want to run for the hills.

I attend a Christian Church now and have made a deliberate choice not to become a member. I reject the notion of Church membership when it is couched in "covenant". I see little biblical basis for Church membership and certainly not Church membership grounded in covenant.

A mega-church like TVC understands this is largely about PR. Churches make or break their reputation by how they deal with situations like this. What they want/need is a good story. with a happy ending.

I do think it is silly that the letter criticizes Karen for annulling the marriage. They also accuse her of "breaking fellowship" but how do they know who she is hanging out with?

I just lol at the fact that after all that has happened with her husband they still put her in a "church discipline" phase.

Also it starts smelling "cult like" when they say they don't let people leave when they are in a "discipline" phase. You are not allowed to leave because you signed this covenant with us.

Does this sound like love or a power struggle?

This kind of stuff really rubs me the wrong way. I am pretty sure if this happened in my church it would be handled the same way. The pastors get all uppidy and want everyone to do things their way.

EDIT:

Karen's reply is great.

Sounds like she is not scared to stick up for herself. Karen is probably right when she accuses the church of seeking to minimize the events and keep things under wraps.

To be fair to them this is only a criticism if they'd chosen not to report the case to the police (like the Catholic Church has been alleged to do). An internal investigation into what happened is standard procedure. They should obviously look into whether they missed anything over time, any reports/allegations made previously etc. Essentially an investigation to see if they had any institutional failures on their part. As long as they aren't doing this instead of getting the police involved I'd think it poor if they didn't.

That's a tough situation. Sounds like they handled it right in terms of the violator, but what gives with the wife? That's where fundamentalism really shows its oppressiveness. In that culture, the woman has very little power. The leaders are all men, and women are subservient to them. Can a woman not decide what's best for her life? Well what a silly notion! Of course not-- she's a woman! She shouldn't worry her pretty little head about such weighty matters like who should and shouldn't be her spouse. Let the men decide for her. Ridiculous. I'll point out too that this represents a particular Christian sect. I cringe when in the public discourse it's representative of the whole. And to the annulment issue-- the marriage is a contract of the court, is it not? Isn't it the court that determines whether or not the marriage can be annulled?

I couldn't read everything, but I am bothered by the church saying someone can't resign.

The wife entered into a covenant marriage which presumably does not permit her from demanding an annulment and walking away, requests that are likely standard in a more typical marriage, no? No doubt she had no idea they would end up in such a messy place, but isn't she still required to go through the motions at least with the style of marriage she and her husband chose?

I don't know enough about the legal vs church authorities, where one ends and the other begins.

The church really has no authority beyond what the believer is willing to accept. They have no legal authority at all, but may assume legal liability.

Entering into a covenant relationship would assume honesty before the covenant was formed, wouldn't it? Consider this scenario: A man and woman enter into a 'covenant' marriage with the intent of raising a family in faith. The man neglects to tell the woman that he is a homosexual prior to the marriage. After marriage, he is unable to have sex with his wife because he is unable to be aroused by her. After a frustrating start to the marriage, he admits to his wife his sexual orientation. He wants to remain married and see a counselor, and eventually adopt children. She wants the marriage annulled. Who violated the covenant? I would argue it was the husband.

IME Christian people marry the same way secular people marry. The Christian marriage may have a bit more focus on God etc. but the idea is the same. It is not like Christian people have this totally foreign covenant tradition. Some Christian wedding make mention that this is a "covenant before God and man" but this is a minor difference IMO.

KBC is right on here. The church has no official authority. Whatever authority the church has is that which the married persons concede. IMO most Christian people would consider their marriage primarily their own business.

Many married people may go to church leadership for counselling if they feel their marriage is on the rocks but this is by no means a "must".

Personally, I think it is preferable to go to qualified marriage/family counselors than church leadership. Pastors are not generally trained to be marriage counselors they are trained to be teachers.

I think KBC hit the nail on the head with the annulment example. Karen is smart to go for an annulment rather than a divorce. An annulment denotes that the marriage was never valid and based on false pretenses. I am not sure what the process is to get a legal annulment but conceptually she certainly has grounds.

Bladesman,

Fair enough. I just think how they spoke about the investigation makes it sounds like they have done this before or know what they are doing.