An Update on Shunning – Official Church Policy Enclosed

 

The Admins of this site hold the position that the “original” sin of the former ANTM is shunning. We have used the term “cult” in the past to describe the ANTM and we maintain that position toward the remaining churches, principally because while many other ANTM practices can be referred to as “cult-like,” it is the level of control manifested by “if you leave, you will be shunned” that clinches the moniker for these churches as a bona-fide cult.

 

We want to first note that in recent days, the practice of shunning has shown evidence of being softened. Whether the members are inspired individually or corporately, we are thrilled to hear of multiple instances of family members reaching out to those they had previously cut off. This is categorically good, and we applaud this. To reiterate: the practice of “shunning” is the clearest demarcator of “cult” status. If you don’t want your church to be a cult or to be called a cult and you don’t want to be in a cult, start with “not shunning.” 

 

Some background: the practice of “shunning” falls under the ANTM doctrine of “Church Discipline,” which is covered in a dozen plus pages in the church’s CHRISTIAN LIFE BOOK. The method has its scriptural basis in Matthew 25, and can be summarized as:  

1) If a member is in sin, they should be approached one on one. If this fails, 

2) Approach them with a few others, 

3) Should this fail, ‘tell it to the church. If all methods of reconciliation fail, 

4) The person should be ‘disfellowshipped.’

 

The former ANTM churches use this term “disfellowship” for a practice that is indistinguishable from shunning. We will continue to use “shunning” in this document and in future to provide clarity and to shed light on the truth of this practice.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

A quick thought on the 4th step of church discipline: it is a violent act with long-lasting consequences. It is ANTMQ’s belief that this step was only given by Jesus as a means of dealing with the most extreme and dangerous circumstances. By the structure of His instructions, it is clear that it was never intended to be anything but a rare and final step in an irrecoverable and potentially dangerous situation. On a private note, in 20 years of various church attendance subsequent to LCLC, one ANTMQ Admin has seen one instance of the 4th step being implemented. It is such a frankly unusual and haunting practice that a single occurrence is memorable. It is unthinkable that a single, healthy church would have dozens if not hundreds of instances of administering the 4th step and indeed that that church would have a robust policy and history of applying it. 

 

To reiterate: in recent days we have received stories of people leaving these churches over 40 years ago and yet, they are still being shunned. It is not an exaggeration to say that essentially everyone who has ever left, for any reason, of their own volition or otherwise, has experienced a significant degree of shunning. This is inappropriate practice from a Christian perspective and fails any measure of tests including humane behavior, and not least of all, simple kindness. 

​

Against this backdrop, we have received a document from 2021 which states the church’s official stance on shunning. This document constitutes the most recent and most explicit look at the church’s processes yet. It makes absolutely clear that shunning is, or was, both explicitly encouraged and/or mandated, as well as restating the threat that it awaits anyone who leaves. The document is attached. To be clear: We have seen nothing in practice nor in writing that supersedes this document. In addition, and this is speculative, this policy was very likely not written by a James family member, and therefore its author is still likely a person in a prominent position of leadership at LCLC.

Our thoughts, and we encourage yours:

 

Working from the outside in, it’s impossible to miss that this is a four-page document focusing heavily on one aspect (the fourth step) of church discipline. The document is actually an addendum to the by-laws of Lakeview Christian Life Church, or LCLC. Since it was expected to be affirmed–as the other by-laws are available “upon request,” we are forced to conclude that this section was the update to the by-laws that made re-affirmation necessary. The by-laws were required to be re-signed by all families attending the church’s school (Lakeview Christian Academy, or LCA).

​

We enter into the area of plausible deniability where we shall be, probably, for the remainder of this analysis. Between every line is the “true” meaning of this policy, which any member has been long trained to intuit. The insinuation is obvious. On its surface, parents were simply asked to re-affirm their adherence to the church’s by-laws. Surely there is nothing more normal than simply asking parents of children in a religious institution to reaffirm and clarify their beliefs. But a few points are raised:

1) You don’t ask people to re-sign by-laws, specifically a 4-page document on church discipline, (an expansion on the nearly 20 pages in the CL book, as noted) unless you think this is, or will be, a huge issue. By comparison, we know of a non-affiliated Christian school that asked their families to reaffirm their statement of faith: this included language about biblical marriage, which was the hot-button topic of the time.

​

2) It’s a delicate matter to use this word, but this was a document families were “forced” to sign. Obviously there are always broader alternatives, but in the particular case of LCLC members, church membership and school attendance are all closely tied together. Refusal to sign would clearly lead to massive personal and familial disruption.

 

Onto the language itself:

 

Per this document, church discipline is broken into two separate parts. There are church discipline matters when a member is in active sin. And secondarily, there is church discipline called for “to keep the church free from those elements which would weaken it and rob it of its integrity.” Because this document uses the language “secondarily,” we can deduce that this is the item of primary importance. 

 

​

​

A full analysis of the article would be exhausting but it’s instructive to look at one bit:

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

This is really the core of the document and indeed the core of ANTMQ and most Former Member’s issues with LCLC/ANTM. The overall document purports to be a “policy” and a statement of heavily researched, doctrinally sound practice. To that end, we will do it the favor of taking it at face value. The above passage appears to be a standard discussion of practice for “mutual dissolution” of church bonds by both parties, the church and the member. And yet, within a single sentence, the parties pivot to the “church and its leadership” and the “sinning member.” Unless there is an error, this shows us that in truth, this church does not see a potential for a good faith, mutual dissolution of membership. To be clear: *This church sees anyone who would leave as a sinning member.* With this determination, the church and its members are given carte blanche to apply the highest level of church discipline, which is, as seen, shunning.

 

This also explains the phenomenon seen over and over whereby Former Members will be shunned regardless of their manner of leaving or subsequent behavior. Many FMs will re-examine their faith and remain devout, others will go a different way. *The shunning we have seen makes no distinction between them.* This practice is as much a smoking gun, and a condemnation of LCLC practices, as any document could ever be.

​

As importantly, between the language seen, and the subsequent observed practices, the message is clear *there is no leaving without shunning.* To restate, you don’t have parents sign a four page document on shunning unless you want to send a crystal-clear message that 1) you better shun those who have left and 2) if you dare leave, you will be shunned in turn. 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​​

This is simply nonsense. In effect, it says, “you’re not done being a member until we say.” Since church membership is almost entirely symbolic, this gesture is simply a means of enforcing that “we can say anything we want about you as long as we want.” 

​

We look forward to hearing of amendments to these published policies. More importantly, we look forward to hearing more stories of family members being responsive to their consciences, to their humanity, and stepping away from LCLC practices. Best of all, we look to the day when LCLC and any of its satellite churches do not practice shunning at all.

​

We leave you with the full, written LCLC Shunning Policy.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​