Legal Issues

Reposted, with permission, from Theologically Driven.

One of the more interesting discoveries I made when researching Baptist polity a few years ago was the lost practice of “recognition councils.” Most Baptists are familiar with ordination councils, in which a local church calls together a group of elders and messengers from like-minded area churches to examine an aspiring minister’s fitness for ministry, and thereafter to advise the church either to pursue ordination, to delay ordination until the examinee is more fit for the ministry, or to deny ordination entirely. Recognition councils occur when a new assembly calls together a group of elders from like-minded area churches to examine its governing documents, and thereafter to advise the assembly to pursue chartering, to delay chartering until its documents are in order, or even to abandon entirely its plan for a new church.

Typically, recognition councils examined a prospective church’s constitution and bylaws, doctrinal statement, and covenant. But there are a great many other documents that may also be subjected to examination: mission statements, philosophies of ministry, employee job descriptions, teacher policies, nursery policies, facilities-usage policies, etc. What I’d like to suggest in this post is that the lost practice of recognition councils be formally revived, or, at the very least, that churches informally pool their collective minds to assist one another in creating ecclesiastical documents that are orthodox, orthoprax, and in our litigious society, as litigation-proof as is possible.

By David M. Gower. Posted with permission from Baptist Bulletin May/June 2012. All rights reserved.

People expect a lot from a pastor—including standing up for justice and helping those in need. But they also expect him to provide confidential spiritual guidance. So what happens when these expectations collide? What happens when a pastor learns that someone he is counseling has committed a crime? To whom does the pastor owe his loyalty: the person being counseled, or the victim of the crime? These questions are at the center of a rape case now pending in a Michigan court of appeals that will set precedent in Michigan and could have ramifications nationwide.

People of Michigan v. Samuel Bragg

John Vaprezsan is the pastor of Metro Baptist Church, an independent Baptist church in Belleville, Mich. In 2009, reports USA Today, a woman in the church told Vaprezsan that her daughter had been raped by Samuel Bragg, a teenager who also attended Metro Baptist. The girl was just 9 years old at the time of the assault.

After hearing this disturbing news, Vaprezsan asked Bragg and his mother to meet him at the church. Vaprezsan claims that at the meeting Bragg confessed to sexually assaulting the girl. Later Vaprezsan gave a statement to police and Bragg was charged with first-degree criminal sexual assault. But Bragg and his mother deny making any confession.

Knowing that his testimony would be vital to the case, Vaprezsan agreed to testify in court about the details of Bragg’s confession. However, the trial judge ruled that Vaprezsan’s testimony was inadmissible because it would violate Michigan’s clergy privilege statute, which states,

No minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination whatsoever, or duly accredited Christian Science practitioner, shall be allowed to disclose any confessions made to him in his professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the rules or practice of such denomination.¹

The prosecutor appealed the trial judge’s decision to the Michigan court of appeals, which has not issued its ruling as of this writing.²