How are Scientology and Watermark Church in Dallas similar?
I was recently contacted by someone through my website who was searching online about spiritual abuse and how a local Dallas megachurch’s ‘tactics’ were similar to Scientology. This person came across my blog during that search when some of my posts about The Village Church showed up in his search results. I’ve made a couple of comparisons between TVC & Scientology, which is probably what landed him on my blog. He is a former member of Watermark Community Church in Dallas.
When someone is starting to realize that they have been spiritually abused, they typically go on an information journey. I went through the same thing when I left an abusive church almost 10 years ago. You have an insatiable need to make sense of what happened to you; how this church appealed to you & you got sucked in and why you stayed in a church that was clearly abusive. A lot of what he related to me made me think of Scientology’s use of ‘fair game’.
What Is 'Fair Game'
If you are not familiar with Scientology, ‘Fair Game’ is a tactic that is used against someone who is perceived as an enemy of the church. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, introduced the policy in the 1967:
A person who is “suppressive” is considered an “enemy” and “may be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed” (HCO Policy Letter of 18 October, 1967).
While the Church of Scientology will state that they abandoned the practice in 1968, anyone who has watched the documentary ‘Going Clear‘ or Leah Remini’s show on A&E, ‘Scientology and the Aftermath‘ will tell you that the practice is alive and well in Scientology. They will go to the ends of earth to silence their critics, particularly those who have left the church and took all their secrets with them.
Some examples of fair game would be:
- Lawsuits
- Harrassment
- Spreading false information/lies
- Expose personal information to the press/public
- Disruption of business/employment
- Abuse of confidential communications
Scientology’s use of fair game to attack it’s critics is well documented and one only need to do a cursory search on Google to read story after story of the horrors people have endured due to this practice.
Let's Go Back in Time to 2006....
In 2006, Watermark Community Church, an 11,000 member megachurch in Dallas, TX, was embroiled in a legal battle with one of its former members. As detailed in the XPastor blog from 10/12/16, ‘Care & Correction or Shaming-A Case Study‘ we find the story of a marriage in crisis between two members of Watermark Church – John Doe & Jane Doe. Jane Doe discovers that her husband is having an affair with Jane Roe, and goes to her church leaders for advice and guidance (as per the membership covenant).
When the efforts of the pastoral leadership failed to bring about reconciliation in the marriage, they decided to take a more drastic approach and proceed with church discipline toward John Doe.
Now here is where you need to pay attention.
Watermark Church operates under the same methodologies as The Village Church, in that they feel it is their duty to be super involved in every area of people lives, particularly marriages. These two churches will go to great lengths to preserve a marriage (read: idolize an institution) rather than care about the actual people in the relationships. Since John Doe & Jane Doe signed a membership covenant at Watermark (please don’t sign these) they opened themselves up to what I’ll henceforth now refer to as ‘fair game‘.
Since John Doe refused to reconcile with his wife, Jane Doe, and continued to ‘carry on’ with Jane Roe (who happened to work for a church in Tennessee), Watermark Church did the following:
- When John Doe tried to withdraw his membership, Watermark threatened to send letters to 6 Watermark members and 6 NON-Watermark members (who were friends of Jane Doe) concerning Watermark’s intentions to enact disciplinary actions towards John Doe
- Contacted Jane Roe (the other woman) who was NOT a member of Watermark Church
- Threatened to contact John Doe & Jane Roe’s employers
- Threatened to contact Jane Roe’s friends & community where she lived (in another state)
- Shamed John Doe from the pulpit
- Disclosed personal & confidential information in a public setting
- Threatened to contact an organization of which John Doe sat on the board of directors.
SOUND FAMILIAR?
The only reason that Watermark Church didn’t carry out their ‘fair game’ on John Doe was because he & Jane Roe filed a lawsuit, and rightfully so.
(Disclaimer: I am in no way defending John Doe’s actions as it pertains to adultery – which I is believe is a sin and a terrible thing to happen in a marriage.)
If you find yourself under church discipline and try to seek help from the law, too bad.
The legal code in the United States includes a concept known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. “That doctrine prohibits the civil courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction in instances involving church doctrine, church governance and the church’s right to discipline its members for lapsing into behavior it deems immoral.”
This is How We Love You
Todd Wagner, senior pastor of Watermark Community Church, is quoted as saying, “Sue me. Nail me to a tree. Tell me you hate me. Misrepresent my motives. We’re going to love you anyway.”
WHAT IS LOVE, ACTUALLY?
Turns out, LOVE, can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. To an organization, like Watermark Church, it means contacting the employer of someone who isn’t even a member of their church:
“Mr. Wagner said this week that he believed he was obligated to contact the woman’s boss even though she never signed up for Watermark’s discipline, because all Christians are obligated to one another.
“If a sister sins, she is a sister in Christ,” he said. “We are commanded to love our neighbor.”
It also means taking any means necessary to make you act right:
“Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of the Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas organization that fights for religious liberties, said the church is behaving this way because it feels it must save the marriage. “They love this individual,” Shackelford said. “They love the people around him and want to do everything they can to bring him back into the fold and get his life straight on path.” John Doe does not feel the love. He is suing the church over the letters and said he is no longer a member. But the church says its covenants, which Doe signed, does not allow members to leave the fold. “All members submit themselves and may not resign from membership in an attempt to avoid such correction,” Shackelford said.”
Folks, this is the 21st century and we live in the most free country on the planet – yet this church thinks they have the power to tell someone they CAN’T LEAVE THE FOLD? How preposterous! Of course Watermark Church’s only recourse in situations like this is FAIR GAME. ‘We will harass you, call your employer, mail out letters, announce your name in front of the church – whatever it takes to bully you back into compliance and the fear that WE WILL DO THOSE THINGS will keep you here.’
Again, I’m not defending John Doe’s adultery, just that Watermark Church had no right to go outside the church or to the lengths that they did to try and save the marriage.
If you try to leave Watermark Church and they don’t want you to leave? Be prepared for a battle.
Legal Things
In the end, John Doe and Jane Doe ended up reconciling and the lawsuit was dropped. I’m sure Watermark was relieved and considered it a big ‘win’ for their hard efforts in reconciling the marriage. While it was a win that a marriage survived the heartache of adultery, it does not negate the nightmare that John & Jane Doe (and Jane Roe) went through as a result of the actions of Watermark Church. There are some lessons to be learned and facts to be gleaned from this case that are VERY important. You might be unaware of just how vulnerable you are legally when you are dealing with a church where you signed a membership covenant and find yourself in their crosshairs.
- The church is under no obligation to keep your information private or confidential
“A Texas appeals court will decide whether the Watermark Community Church went too far in its attempt to save a church member’s marriage. A lower court has already ruled that the church is free to release private information about its members. John Doe’s attorney says his client is now considering a civil lawsuit against the church for slander.”
(*This does not apply to clergy/penitent privilege)
Remember when you are getting all connected in a Community, Marriage or Recovery Group, doing all the sharing….none of that is required to be kept confidential BY LAW.
2. The Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine of the First Amendment (that I mentioned above), known as the ‘church autonomy’ doctrine. According to this Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review article:
“In its most distilled form, the doctrine counsels that if a case would require a civil court to decide a matter of religious doctrine, the court should either refuse to adjudicate[1] or defer to the relevant religious hierarchy.”
What this means is that if you have an issue with, for example, how a church is handling internal discipline, like in the case of John & Jane Doe, the courts have no obligation to intervene, citing a separation of secular law & church doctrine/bylaws. The secular courts cannot apply secular laws to church bylaws. John Doe & Jane Roe attempted to challenge this in a higher court, but the lawsuit was dropped. I believe that if this had advanced through the court system, there would have been some interesting rulings as a result of this case, since Watermark clearly went outside of the membership covenant and the church at large to administer church discipline.
3. If you sign a church membership covenant, understand that it IS a legal document & can be used against you in legal proceedings
When the case of John Doe and Jane Roe v. Watermark Community Church was heard by the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas County, TX, Watermark Church’s attorney’s responded to the appeal with the following brief (excerpts):
- Doe and his wife signed a membership covenant with Watermark in April 2005.
- Doe’s wife first approached the church for counseling about her husband’s affair. “In response to her request for help, the church began a disciplinary process involving Mr. Doe to bring him back to his “religious practices” and “bring healing and restoration to the spouses of a broken marriage.”
- By signing the membership covenant, he waived any right to have the disciplinary proceedings remain confidential.
By signing the membership covenant, John Doe signed away any rights to confidentiality. There it is, in writing, indisputable, for everyone to read. If you needed any more convincing about why you SHOULDN’T sign a membership covenant, I hope this is it.
Talking Out of Both Sides Of Your Mouth
This is a famous saying in the South, which means, ‘you are saying one thing and then saying another and they contradict‘.
That is what Todd Wagner did in this case.
In an interview on the Drew Marshall show, Todd defended Watermark’s actions in the case, but inadvertently contradicted himself.
- He stated initially that he felt it was the duty of Watermark Church to go outside the church to notify Jane Roe’s employer of the affair. Jane Roe was NEVER a member of Watermark Church.
“Mr. Wagner said this week that he believed he was obligated to contact the woman’s boss even though she never signed up for Watermark’s discipline, because all Christians are obligated to one another.”
But THEN later on he stated that Watermark Church…
“The final step in the Matthew 18 process was to close the communications with those that were personally involved with “Mr. and Mrs. Doe and Ms. Roe” and to clarify the church’s need to separate from “Mr. Doe’s” continued behavior.”
So which is it? First Watermark asserts it’s right to contact a non-member’s employer, then states it ‘closed communications’ in the process of carrying out Matthew 18. Those two statements contradict.
“The last step was to make the end of the process (and by the way, the adulterous relationship) public to some of Mr. Doe’s associates, who already knew about it, and to Ms. Roe’s bosses, who did not. Ms. Roe, the Other Woman, works for a church in Tennessee.”
Watermark Church wants the right to administer church discipline inside AND outside of it’s membership and membership covenants, to the degree that is, in my opinion, harrassment.
Let’s be clear – no where in the Bible is the process of discipline Watermark used in this case ever sanctioned or used.
When Things Start To Get Weird
When I read the email that I received from the former-Watermark member, some things he wrote stood out to me. First of all, he was very hesitant to disclose too much information. Why? He feared retribution from Watermark Church. This is a real fear, folks. In my post, From Recovery to Abuse: Part I, Christina suspects her push-back towards certain members at The Village Church resulted in the loss of a relationship and a job. Just like The Village Church, Watermark Church has many members in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Thousands of tentacles reaching far and wide into every area of business and community. There are true risks to speaking out against such a large church that has a lot of power and influence.
Secondly, he said he was singled out and talked to privately by a staff member for hanging out with someone that they didn’t approve of. What caused the red flags to go up for him was that it really wasn’t any of their business who he hung out with, and he knew there were other motives behind that meeting.
Trust your gut people.
I plan on speaking to him to hear more about his experience at Watermark Church and hope that he will be willing to share more about some of the concerning issues that came up while he was there. I will also be posting more about Watermark Church’s other similarities to Scientology, more specifically, getting connected through their community groups. Stay tuned.
Outsourced: How Watermark Community Church Fails in Caring for It’s Members
What happens when a church places all of the responsibility...
Read More
I was a member of Watermark Church. When we moved to a different church, they reached out to me to see if I had any concerns or things I needed to discuss about my leaving. No one forced me to sign a membership covenant. I voluntarily signed because I wanted to be a member and have the accountability. When we moved to another church, I was free to go. A person can attend the church as long as they want and never join. But if you sign the agreement and state that you want to be a part of the… Read more »
Please read our hellish experience with Watermark Church…would love to talk to you. We have copious documentation. Because Wagner had his slimy attorney (Robert Bell Crotty) for whom I have ANOTHER victim’s testimony break a Bar ethics rule…this won’t be pretty. Please help us. Leslie Ann Brown https://www.reactionarytimes.com/a-watermark-of-authenticity/ https://www.reactionarytimes.com/parental-alienation-who-brainwashes-children-sadly-some-parents-do/
Creepy!!!! Are they Calvinists?
Amazing how these churches love them some power. Each mega church has it’s own little pope. What happened to Jesus’ own words about “who the Son sets free is free indeed?” Not in these churches…